This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
typeof (was Re: C++ PATCH: Fix PR 288)
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Subject: typeof (was Re: C++ PATCH: Fix PR 288)
- From: Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:12:53 -0500
- Cc: gregod at cs dot rpi dot edu, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <01021801142700.00895@gregod> <20010218121047Y.mitchell@codesourcery.com>
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 12:10:47PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >>>>> "Doug" == Doug Gregor <gregod@cs.rpi.edu> writes:
>
> Doug> In general, the typeof extension need not be semantically
> Doug> different from sizeof, but is many times more useful.
[...]
> However, maybe you're arguing that the `typeof' language extension is
> a good one, relative to some other language extensions? That could
> well be. Your example is indeed compelling.
Every so often somebody raises the idea of typeof on the moderated C++
newsgroups. Everybody likes it. Nearly everybody can agree on exact
semantics. Nobody wants to formally propose it as a language addition,
it seems.
(Although I'm sure that *somebody* will eventually, which is good.)
Phil
--
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com | pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools. Fools are protected by more capable fools.