[boost] Re: typeof

From: Daniel Frey (daniel.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-12 03:48:59

David Abrahams wrote:
> I'm not convinced that this particular ODR violation ends up being a
> problem in practice, though -- ultimately we end up getting the same
> type out of any typeof(...), and if we're never generating linker
> symbols within the computation performed by typeof, we're probably
> going to get away with it.  I think it's worth trying an automatic
> scheme and stress-testing it to see if we can make it break.  Better
> yet, explicitly construct a pared-down version _designed_ to break
> and see if we can cause a problem.

Just to understand you correctly: When I used typeof() in my constant 
library, I was told that it is not acceptable because it's not yet 
standard. Although both the EDG-based compiler I used (Intel) and the 
GCC offered __typeof__.

Now people are trying to emulate the functionality of typeof. They want 
users to register their types and the library is still not as capable as 
a native typeof. Try the examples I provided for unit-library-compatible 
constants.

And now you even say that it's OK to violate existing language rules on 
purpose just because you think it will likely work in practice? Sorry I 
don't get this. If violating the existing standard is an option, than 
__typeof__ should be an option as well. My 2¢.

Regards, Daniel

-- 
Daniel Frey
aixigo AG - financial solutions & technology
Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany
fon: [phone], fax: [phone]
eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de