🚀 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?

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.

--
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  Moderation policy:
  http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html. ]