From -1344617843638184483 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,4d367a5cba81d244 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-24 11:56:14 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!kibo.news.demon.net!mutlu.news.demon.net!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!devnull From: nobody@nowhere.com ("Anonymous") Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Improved handling for partially constructed objects? Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:56:13 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 32 Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++) Message-ID: References: X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 1046116573 29022 10.0.0.1 (24 Feb 2003 19:56:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:56:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Received: from mulga.cs.mu.oz.au ([128.250.1.22]) by news.demon.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18nOhw-0007XM-00 for mail2news@news.news.demon.net; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:56:12 +0000 X-Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU id GAA20898; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 06:03:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Path: comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-Delivered-To: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu X-Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 02:55:11 EST X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=INVALID_MSGID,PRIORITY_NO_NAME,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 version=2.41 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.std.c++:18032 "John Nagle" wrote in message news:JsT2a.302$9G2.40698922@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > Over the years, C++ has acquired more attributes (volatile, > mutable, explicit) to deal with similar ambiguous situations. > What's needed here is a way to say "under construction". > This leads to restrictions similar to those for an > class whose declaration isn't visible - pointers to > it can be manipulated, but you can't access its members. This fits in my idea of private variables. For example, struct S {int x; private: int y;}; int main() { S s; private S& ref = s; ref.x = 3; //Error; cannot access member of private structure 'ref' public S& ref2 = private_cast(s); ref.y = 4; //OK. } --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]