Re: [boost] [unordered] Buffered functions?

Subject: Re: [boost] [unordered] Buffered functions?
From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-29 14:36:15

David Abrahams wrote:
> on Sun Dec 28 2008, Howard Hinnant <hinnant-AT-twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>> Because language supported EMO isn't a realistic possibility in C++0X but allowing
>> (not requiring) EMO emulation in tuple is a realistic  possibility (N2800 arguably
>> already allows the latter).
>>
>> </practical>
>>
>> That being said, if you can get an easier to use solution into C++0X,
>> then you're the man! :-)
> 
> "Even I" can't slip that feature in without anyone noticing at this late date.

I think we should care about C compatibility. If C does not allow EMO, 
then I would suggest using struct/class keywords to make struct C 
compatible whereas "class" could implement EMO and other future features.

Regards,

Ion