Re: typedef vs. typename confusion

[Noel Yap <nyap at garban dot com>]

Joe Buck wrote:
> If compilers were used only by people writing new code, you would have a
> case.  But most people using compilers are compiling at least some old
> code, or other people's code.

People should be able to specify a flag to compile older code.  Did the
original compilers default to C behaviour (ie allowing use of
non-declared functions or assuming int when no type is specified)?  I
don't think so, the compilers forced people to update their code, or
they supplied a switch that would allow older behaviour.

> If we make the requirement for typename the default, people suddenly
> cannot compile lots of free software.  If egcs's main purpose were for
> commercial developers, maybe

I would guess ('cos I haven't really used it) that autoconf would be
able to tell what compiler switches should be used.  Also, I haven't
seen too much freeware written in C++, much less ones using templates.

> You, Noel, may use an alias so that when you type gcc you get
> gcc -pedantic.  You may report as bugs any case where -pedantic does
> not enforce a rule.  But it's not reasonable to demand, after more
> than a decade of success, that gcc suddenly change its basic philosophy.

First of all, I am not demanding, just merely suggesting.  Second,
philosophies must be questioned, especially basic ones.  If they are
lacking, they should be changed.  After all, gcc has been around for
*only* ten years, I presume that it'll be around for much longer than
that.  The earlier "basic" philosophies are changed, the easier they are
to change.

Noel