Re: [boost] Re: Re: Deadline for the Standard Library TechnicalReport

From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-29 11:51:12

David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:

| Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]> writes:
| 
| > David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
| >
| > | "David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]> writes:
| > | 
| > | > "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| > | > news:000d01c2c6f3$85038c30$1d00a8c0_at_pdimov2...
| > | >> [...]
| > | >> By the way, the current typedef template proposal prohibits deduction;
| > | >> this makes it less attractive for creating subpointers.
| > | >
| > | > Ouch!  Is this due to complexity issues, or was it just not deemed useful??
| > | 
| > | It's hard to say why, exactly, but my sense of it was that it was done
| > | because it was easy to specify semantics that were identical to those
| > | of the existing metafunction-form workaround.
| >
| > My recollection is a little different :-)
| 
| Are you planning to grace us with the contents of your memory, Gaby,
| or are you gonna hold us in suspense forever? :-)

Well, my impression wans't that it was done that "way because it was
easy to specify semantics that were identical to those of the existing
metafunction-form workaround".  

We started with looking at both possibilities (I believe you'll
agree), and I can't recall why, it was suddenly assumed that both
forms are exclusive and we started looking at things we could do with
the non-deduction possibility.  Someone (I think Herb) asked some
questions to make sure that we understodd what we were chosing not to
have.  Francis distinguishly and continuously raised several arguments
against the trend.  But at no time, it was question to see whether the
other way was difficult. I even seem to recall that John Spicer
attempted to make cases for the "template aliasing" form.

-- Gaby