This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]