This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ PATCH: PR 23293
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
> We've got multiple bug reports making the opposite complaint -- and,
> at least for the foreseeable future, you can't have both. The
> problem is that the before-patch situation results in diagnostics
> that are downright wrong,
Example, please?
> and to me, that's a definitive advantage to the post-patch approach.
>
> (Personally, the format I've wanted is more like:
>
> ...S<#1>...
>
> #1: allocator<int>
> #2: std::list<int, #1>
> #3: std::vector<#2, #1>
>
> In other words, generate typedef equivalents on the fly, rather than
> trying to use predefined names. But, that's just me, and it's not
> happenning soon anyhow.)
That's very much like the current "with" clauses, ne? I think it's a
big advantage to see memnonic template parameter names there, as in
"with" clauses, rather than the numbers.
--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com