[boost] Re: FC++ Formal review is now in progress (2/13-2/23)

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-13 19:45:04

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 17:54:41 -0500, David Abrahams
<dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>"Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> struct A {
>>   typedef int M;
>>
>>   template <class M>
>>   void foo(void)  {
>>      M m;   // which M is this?
>>   }
>> };
>>
>> I know the C++ committe is discussing this issue at this moment. The argument
>> would be that "M" names the typedef because it's "more stable" than the
>> template parameter (which could get renamed in an out-of-class definition). See
>> also http://gcc.gnu.org/PR13967 for a detailed discussion. 
>
>I'm sorry, but that's insane from a usability POV.

Yeah. These aren't certainly the kind of rules that make we sleep
peacefully :( BTW, template parameters are among the things which get
more easily hidden in C++ - see 14.6.1/5 and 14.6.1/7. Daveed
Vandevoorde is collecting opinions on this (and replies are a
plebiscite)

http://google.com/groups?threadm=52f2f9cd.0402031816.5fb1e8a0%40posting.google.com

Do you know why? Is he proposing some change in the CWG?

Genny.