🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4g62li$kuh@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>,
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
>>me that it should provide a new type and not just a synomym.
>
>I don't remember that issue ever being brought up in the C++
>committee.

The final comment of the Swedish Committee Draft Ballot response was
a recommendation to look closer at this issue in the next round of
standardization.  The suggested syntax was

	explicit typedef int length;

Note the use of keyword explicit to distinguish it from the current
typedef.

Dag Bruck
Swedish Head of Delegation, ISO SC22/WG21

-- 
Dynasim AB                            Phone:  +46 46 182500
Research Park Ideon                   Fax:    +46 46 129879
S-223 70 Lund                         E-mail: Dag@Dynasim.se
Sweden                                URL:    http://www.dynasim.se


[ 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
]