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

From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-17 13:03:02

Daniel Frey <daniel.frey_at_[hidden]> writes:

[...]

| > If you think it is wrong, while being consistent with first principle,
| > then propose a a new first principle.  The worst thing to do, I
| > believe, is to introduce  barnacled hacks that comes from nowhere.
| 
| > We need general rules on which to decide, we don't need barnacled
| > hacks that would appear "intuitive" at a moment when we don't have a
| > working definition of "intuitive".
| 
| I feel accused of "introducing barnacled hacks that come from
| nowhere". I don't think you meant to be insulting, but would you mind
| to assume that I'm not just seeing things from such a narrow
| perspective? I could also assume you are just "blindly applying rules
| without looking at the consequences" - but I think you have better
| reasons for your POV.

I did not intend to insult you.  Please accept my apologies if you
feel insulted.

"barnacled hacks that come from nowhere" already have some instances
in the standard.  I would not like to see them populated.  What I
would like to see is a consistent set of rules, not a long list of
special cases.

| I am actually trying to see where the idea of nested scopes comes from
| and what purpose it fulfills. This purpose is IMHO to keep the code
| readable with the smallest amount of code involved and the least
| number of interactions between the names of different scopes. This

Yes and no. Scope nesting implies name hidding,  which also means
interactions between names of different scopes.

-- Gaby