From -615075267020404401 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,ede379f5dbbc1549 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: niklasb@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Suggestion: "typeof" keyword Date: 1999/08/24 Message-ID: <7ps4b5$fe6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 516719509 Approved: Fergus Henderson References: <7nt3vl$1oe$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7oh7o8$t3f$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7ol6hi$ej9$2@news.BelWue.DE> <7oup0a$8g2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37B3C2AD.5AB722AE@lucent.com> <37B5A571.449B@wanadoo.fr> <37B908A8.717CAC2C@lucent.com> <7pcvjs$tk4$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37BBE6CC.FE2475E5@physik.tu-muenchen.de> <37C15129.B9D9255F@wizard.net> X-Original-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 18:36:22 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows NT; DigExt) X-Complaints-To: news@news.unimelb.edu.au X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 RED-PRXY-06, 1.0 x38.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 131.107.3.76 X-Trace: izvestia.its.unimelb.edu.au 935526269 31298 128.250.29.17 (24 Aug 1999 20:24:29 GMT) Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Aug 23 18:36:22 1999 GMT X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++ iQBFAgUAN8L/Y+EDnX0m9pzZAQEYCQF+JT5FNaqWsgxV2upgGAnwiEdCfOuF+lKa D3nxQFrgtAi6lUuQd/WggaZBpOKbmcY0 =5h1F X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDniklasb NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Aug 1999 20:24:29 GMT Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ In article <37C15129.B9D9255F@wizard.net>, "James Russell Kuyper Jr." wrote: > > "Siemel B. Naran" wrote: > > > On 19 Aug 1999 20:16:34 GMT, blargg wrote: > > > > >This could be true, but why throw away information? The user can always > > >remove it if they want. > > > > On the other hand, they could always add the information if they want. > > You can't add the information back once you've thrown it away. What > you'd need would be yet another keyword, let's call it cvqual(T), which > returns a number indicating whether a top level 'const', 'volatile', or > both, would be thrown away by typeof(T). The 'information' in question here is the reference qualifer, not the const/volatile qualifer. This is unclear because the article blargg was responding to has been cut, so here it is again. In article <37BBE6CC.FE2475E5@physik.tu-muenchen.de>, Christopher Eltschka wrote: :: [...] :: :: If we go to modify the variable, it only makes sense if we know :: from the beginning that the function returns a reference. And :: then we can put the reference litterally. So, "why throw away information?" With regard to the reference qualifier, Christopher has already answered that: because the code that uses a variable or type *needs to know* whether it is a reference; the reference qualifier should therefore be explicit, not a variable that depends on some unknown. As to const and volatile, we are in agreement. I have come around to the view that these should be retained. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't. --- [ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]