Re: I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable (union members and ctors)

["michael.a" <wild dot eyed dot boy dot from dot freecloud at gmail dot com>]

Just for the record, this construction was proposed to me from behind the
scenes:

> class Rect
> {
>        Rect()
>        {
>           new (&xlat) Vec2<T>(); // Explicit calls to the ctor
>           new (&size) Vec2<T>();
>        }
>        ~Rect()
>        {
>           xlat.~Vec2<T>();
>           size.~Vec2<T>();
>        }
> public:
>        union
>        {
>                struct{ Vec2_<T> xlat, size; };
>                struct{ T_ x,y,w,h; };
>        };
> };
>

I think this would likely do the job in many cases with only a little extra
trickery, though I wouldn't be at all surprised if somewhere along the way
the compiler/specs might throw a wrench into the works. 

Nevertheless, it is an interesting expiriment I think, which might contain
further advantages. However, I feel strongly that either avenue of approach
should be open, so that a course of action may be freely chosen. 

I also can't help but consider this a fair ways to go simply to work around
what is I feel a temporary specifications anomale sure to be eventually
sorted out of the future of c++ .  

sincerely,

michael

PS: I really don't think is precisely what the proponents of "placement new"
have in mind, but feel free to rally around this proposal if you must
-michael
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/I%27m-sorry%2C-but-this-is-unacceptable-%28union-members-and-ctors%29-tf3930964.html#a11165235
Sent from the gcc - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.