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).
>> 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.