From -8426501550606472884 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,ede379f5dbbc1549 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: Francis Glassborow Subject: Re: Suggestion: "typeof" keyword Date: 1999/08/17 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 513845442 Approved: stephen.clamage@sun.com (comp.std.c++) 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> X-UID: 0000000001 X-Status: $$$T Organization: Southfield Microcomputer SS Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Francis Glassborow Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Originator: clamage@taumet In article <37B908A8.717CAC2C@lucent.com>, Salters writes >Of course not. However, lacking a formal syntax, I do not know >which *p are turned into types. That's why I put a question mark >after error. Thinking about it, I'm not sure how the formal syntax >should be, but it is reasonable to assume typeof() evaluates to a >type. This would definitely require some major standards work, >since currently nothing evaulates to a type. Proponents of 'typeof' should be beginning to get an idea of the degree of detail required for a proposal for such a keyword. If and only if they can provide a sufficiently tight specification some of us would be willing to champion it, but if you want the extension in the next C++ standard they must do the preliminary work. Francis Glassborow Journal Editor, Association of C & C++ Users 64 Southfield Rd Oxford OX4 1PA +44(0)1865 246490 All opinions are mine and do not represent those of any organisation [ 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 ]