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
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¢.
-- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial solutions & technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk