Re: [boost] Re: Re: [OT] Hiding template parameters [was: FC++ Formalreview is...]

From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-17 05:40:58

"Andy Little" <andy_at_[hidden]> writes:

| "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr_at_[hidden]> wrote
| > David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
| >
| > | > What is bizarre and inconsistent about it and is not with the other
| > | > alternatives you care to name?
| > |
| > | As I expected my example below to demonstrate, I think it's
| > | inconsistent with the way names from non-dependent base classes are
| > | dealt with when masked by function parameter names.
| >
| > But function parameters are not template parameters vice versa. And
| > you should not expect them to behave the same without providing
| > technical reasons why such expectations may take place.
| 
| Strikes me that one of C++ s problems is that the namespace system (which
| itself partly resulted from confusion over C struct space) does not really
| formally address the fact that there are many different kinds of 'space', as
| examples(simplifying)  object-space, type-space and template-space.

I'm sorry, I cannot undersand what you mean here.
If you meant that the C "struct stat hack" should have been
generalized to template, then I disagree. As a programmer, I find that
thing much much more confusing that the issue at hand.

-- Gaby