🚀 go-pugleaf

rpayne@rainbow.rmii.com (Robert Payne) writes:

>Why has C++ stayed with the weak typedef?  It has always seemed to
>me that it should provide a new type and not just a synomym.  Some
>lints check for strong typing but I haven't found a compiler that 
>will enforce it.  I know this must have been debated at some point
>but I didn't find it in a FAQ.  Could someone please enlighten me?

If typedef were to create a new type, what operations would be allowed
on the new type?

I think that changing the meaning of `typedef' would be a bad idea.
It might make sense to propose a new construct, say `newtypedef', that
did something different, but C++ already has a way to create new types
(`class'), and it is not at all clear that adding a new way would be
worth the additional complexity.

--
Fergus Henderson             	WWW: http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh
fjh@cs.mu.oz.au              	PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3
---
[ To submit articles: try just posting with your news-reader.
                      If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html
  Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.
]