From 695040593137707648 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,ede379f5dbbc1549 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: kuehl@horn.fmi.uni-konstanz.de (Dietmar Kuehl) Subject: Re: Suggestion: "typeof" keyword Date: 1999/08/09 Message-ID: <7ol6hi$ej9$2@news.BelWue.DE>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 510631490 Approved: Valentin Bonnard References: <7nt3vl$1oe$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7oh7o8$t3f$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Original-Date: 9 Aug 1999 00:14:42 GMT Organization: Fakultdt f|r Mathematik und Informatik X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++ iQBVAwUAN67zUawEuYhIxRhxAQHC+QH8Cs/FFu1h+J6H0TXddMZ6Mto0QvwjtvgY 2eq4h75UXRydB+PFDKjoEsql7xPZ9l7k7YtBBcVWG5Ssxvr3QAQoxw== =RVQH Reply-To: dietmar.kuehl@claas-solutions.de Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Hi, rado42 (rado42@my-deja.com) wrote: : I suggest to vote for or against it it. To what end? The standard was approved last year and will remain stable until at least 2003. Of course, we may lobby our favorite compiler provider to implement this feature and we might even get several providers to implement this feature exactly the same. It is even implemented by existing compilers eg. I know that g++ at least had this feature for some years. [Dietmar is checking whether the features is still there] Cool: gcc still has it. So, we should demonstrate useful application of this keyword, show where things become possible which were not possible before and/or much easier to warrent this feature. If we can provide evidence that this feature is needed by showing the difference of the code with and without this feature, I can imagine that for the next round of standardization we can get it in. : Anyone who is FOR the 'typedef' extension, reply to this mail. : Anyone AGAINST it, reply to the 1st one that is AGAINST it. Go to the meetings of the corresponding national body and/or to the joint ANSI/ISO meetings and talk to people trying to convince them of the usefulness of this feature. Write a proposal for this feature (saying what it does, where it is useful, what the impacts are, which code is broken, and spelling out the details how to change the standard). This has better chance to get the feature in than having a vote on the Net! I'm also willing to push this issue forward (potentially trying to get the German body into a position of rejecting the next version of the Standard, that is after 2003, if this feature is not in). But I don't have the necessary insight into the core language to write the corresponding proposal... Maybe there is already a proposal which was just received to late? Whas it voted on? -- I am a realistic optimist - that's why I appear to be slightly pessimistic --- [ 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 ]