🚀 go-pugleaf

Steve Clamage (clamage@Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
: rpayne@rainbow.rmii.com (Robert Payne) writes:

: >Why has C++ stayed with the weak typedef?  It has always seemed to
: ><snip>

: I don't remember that issue ever being brought up in the C++
: committee. The obvious argument against it is that it would
: break too many existing programs. Whether the benefits would
: outweigh the cost is debatable, but my feeling is that the
: cost is too high.

I would even be happy just to see a compile time warning issued, unless
of course, the types were really incompatible.  I just feel that if
we are going to the trouble of creating abstract types, the least 
the compiler should do is issue a warning when we assign something
of cat_t to a dog_t entity even if the underlying type is 
indigenous and compatible. 

Cheers,

--
Robert Payne 

[ To submit articles: Try just posting with your newsreader.  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
]