This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: mp = &o.f;
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 17 March 2003 6:47 pm, Joe Buck inspired the electrons to say:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 04:56:17PM +0100, Christian Parpart wrote:
> > However, that, what I am talking about was a proposal by Borland already
> > made in september 2002.
> >
> > The refering URL is:
> > http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1384.pdf
>
> That document makes three proposals. The first one, bound pointers to
> members, I would heartily support, as it would greatly simplify a lot
> of the code that I (and others) write. Practically every approach to
> simulation in C++ has to simulate this concept of bound pointers somehow
> (either with a common baseclass or with templates, and both means have
> their disadvantages).
>
> I'm less enthusiatic about the others (properties and extended RTTI).
>
> It might make sense for GCC to accept clean implementations of serious
> standard-extension proposals, but we'd need to be very cautious about
> it. If we accept everything, it hampers maintainance; if we accept
> nothing, it puts GCC behind the competition (after all, standards
> committees want to accept proposals based on demonstrated usefulness,
> so implementations must precede standardization).
What exactly does this now mean to the possible implementation of (at least)
the bound pointers to members in g++?
I ask because only two responded to this so called request....
Many thanks,
Christian Parpart.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+dp4kPpa2GmDVhK0RAjOgAJ0YRBQHigOf99lIuDCCLgWIWRbsTACeMGa7
vInDIiFcGrOLp0rWr3cGUwI=
=Rqyc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----