Re: typedef vs. typename confusion

[Noel Yap <nyap at garban dot com>]

Mike Stump wrote:
> 
> > Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 07:39:05 -0400
> > From: Noel Yap <nyap@garban.com>
> 
> > Why allow people to unknowingly write sloppy code.
> 
> Why to you call it unknowingly?  They do it, we tell them they did it,
> we tell them to fix their code, all by default.  Is you claim that we
> don't tell them to fix their code or that we can't expect the user to
> be able to read what we tell them.  Or is your concern that while they
> may read it and understand it when we tell them to fix their code,
> that they may ignore it?  Do you think that we should also force them,
> coerce them to fix their code?

In a word, yes.  C++ is a confusing enough of a language without
compilers allowing programmers to write non-C++ C++.

> 
> > If they want to write non-compliant code, they should know it's
> > non-compliant and, therefore, should be the ones to specify a flag.
> 
> You seem not take have read what the others before you have said.
> Some of them aren't writing non-conforming code.  The code was written
> against the arm, the arm was the standard, their code was perfectly
> compliant to the standard at the time.  

And now the standard has changed.  I'm not blaming the programmers for
the old code.  I may be blaming the compiler for allowing them easily to
write non-conformant new code.

> The tool to be easy to use,
> identifies when such a thing is necessary _automatically_ and yes, by
> default, and helps the poor user along.

Again, this sounds like a Microsoft philosophy, "Treat the stupid, poor
users with lots of pity.  We know better than them what's good for 'em."

>  You can claim that this is
> bad, and does a disservice to the users.  That users are better off
> being forced, kicking and screaming, into the new standard.  You can
> claim that C++ is better off by giving everyone that trys a new
> compiler, a bad taste in their mouth when none of their code compiles.

Yes, this is what I claim.

> Try doing a user survey sometime.

Transitions are always difficult.

> 
> What's reall fun, it when the compiler is so pedantic, that it
> complains about your non-compliant system header files, and refuses to
> compile any user code, now, that's helping the user!  That way they
> can know their system vendor isn't compliant!  Not!

Then they can turn the flag on, then complain to their system vendor. 
Moving forward is always prefered to stagnation.

Noel