Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Config

From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard (jbms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-10 13:01:51

"Reece Dunn" <msclrhd_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:

[snip]

>> Actually on compilers where it's needed, it seems to be safe (and
>> occasionally neccessary) to use it everywhere except in the place
>> labelled OK above.  We really ought to change it to BOOST_TYPENAME.

> I think the name should be kept - it is already in use, so changing it may break
> a lot of code.

I would imagine that this change could be made in all of both boost
code and documentation using a simple search and replace.  E. g.:
find -type -f -exec sed -i \
     -e 's/BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME/BOOST_TYPENAME/g' '{}' \;

Otherwise, #define BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME BOOST_TYPENAME could be added
temporarily after the change is made.

> Also, the name indicates the use of typename in the
> BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME T::type type context, signifying meaning.

But the name is misleading when used in other contexts.

>> ( this might be another reason to write template<class T> ;-> )

> Here would be a good use for a BOOST_TYPENAME, that becomes typename for
> compilers that support it, and class for those that don't. Thus, my example
> would become:

[snip]

What is the advantage in typing "BOOST_TYPENAME" when it would _always_
be semantically equivalent to "class"?

-- 
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard