From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-22 08:26:36
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> From: "Herb Sutter" <hsutter_at_[hidden]>
> > > But it's off topic to have a general "make suggestions for the new
> > > language" discussion here.
> > Indeed, and thanks to you, Dave, and Beman for repeating this. My
> > for a list of features "most needed" for writing C++ "libraries ... and
> > in particular."
> > So far, there have been three such suspects discussed: typedef
> > auto, and typeof.
> I have to disagree with this. 'auto' is a nice feature that definitely
> publicity but it's _not_ needed for writing libraries (except for the
> type autodeduction which is solved by typeof.)
auto is a wierd edge case: it isn't, strictly speaking, needed for library
writing. However, libraries which use expression templates (e.g. lambda and
bind!) are a lot more usable if we have auto. If there were a way to provide
the same functionality using the existing language, you can be sure that
writers of such libraries would do so.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk