220 4338 <6477a95a-1692-4a86-bdee-4135e793a8e3@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: unituniverse.1@gmail.com Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: A cleaner way to define nested class/structure Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 12:04:44 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 201 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <6477a95a-1692-4a86-bdee-4135e793a8e3@isocpp.org> References: <27175469-a158-4bc1-9f30-66e3a647e931@isocpp.org> <102b1477-204a-4504-80eb-197e1ad97206@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_34_11309744.1368039884227" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1368039894 22183 80.91.229.3 (8 May 2013 19:04:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 19:04:54 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDBYPZVK7MJRBTWDVKGAKGQEMKG42YY@isocpp.org Wed May 08 21:04:53 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-oa0-f69.google.com ([209.85.219.69]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ua9fV-0003qG-0x for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 May 2013 21:04:49 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-oa0-f69.google.com with SMTP id i10sf9271921oag.0 for ; Wed, 08 May 2013 12:04:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=q5rlxVgM/l1PTP5PKck7ayncHgtkvvjc4VTD2UN6UnU=; b=JkLXXuV5CNN4CkKu+epTnWrTgzoQkT9Fx2krS8CwHk4nlv1xrCN6i5rsnIDtqdUBBX hm6uhrO6m7YPTX8udC6KBXO1YGc8x8aLWJnO/gno4ipwSIXk1BalmCmnLnD3JvP4i6yW cN/fVtZF7T8+eoWgu0ju5JcDMxatPu2Y3JCGFSn06d0i596ghC5A8dOWynhBsF3MYHII 58gSErPXgxnpUFwsuel+oYLbixp2y7GFZ7O+baQPgw2YaIUCYtUsu6rUaN2F+lFx4jpI vecAvo+cQzqnlTX3ea/Cv3Dbd/8JXOm7dKhFuN6PZ+P72HsuNO7C/i0Bbt/Mh3OnFwQt 5zrg== X-Received: by 10.182.28.233 with SMTP id e9mr4472666obh.23.1368039887786; Wed, 08 May 2013 12:04:47 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.182.29.168 with SMTP id l8ls141323obh.45.gmail; Wed, 08 May 2013 12:04:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.80.167 with SMTP id s7mr124092obx.1.1368039886166; Wed, 08 May 2013 12:04:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: unituniverse1@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:4338 Archived-At: ------=_Part_34_11309744.1368039884227 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =E5=9C=A8 2013=E5=B9=B45=E6=9C=888=E6=97=A5=E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E4=B8=89UTC-4= =E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=882=E6=97=B636=E5=88=8645=E7=A7=92=EF=BC=8CHariharan Subram= anian=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > > > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:11 AM, >wrote= : > >> How about this: >> template < typename _Ty1 > >> class Outer >> { >> template < typename _Ty2 > class Inner; >> }; >> >> // How to write Inner here? >> > =20 > It gives the user the capability to write the definition of inner class= =20 > even before the outer class is defined. Only the order is reversed. If we= =20 > can define Inner class after the Outer class we can use the same techniqu= e=20 > to define the Inner class before defining the Outer class. So there is no= =20 > problem here. > > And this: >> class C1 >> { >> }; >> >> class Outer >> { >> class C1; >> }; >> >> //class Outer::C1 {}; // Any conflict? >> > > Outer::C1 is defined after defining Outer class. So this is not related t= o=20 > this proposal. The answer for your question is there is no conflict. > > Regards, > Hariharan S > > you still gives no answer of the first question. i mean how to write the template's definition if the Inner will be defined= =20 as a nested class? or just provided a rule say: a nested class/structure=20 can't be defined outside of a class if it is a template (or if the outer is= =20 a template)? or provided another formal of expression for template-nestes? The second scope, as i asked before, currently the following code piece is= =20 legal: class C1 // ::C1 { }; class Outer { class C1 // ::Outer::C1 { }; class C1; // Declaration of the ::Outer::C1 but not ::C1 }; There is no conflict here. Now, assuming if we plan to write a inner class C1 and put its definition= =20 out of the class, how to sure that no conflict will exist? Like the following steps: step1: Creating a new project, nothing but a entry functions in your=20 source, then put the code here: class Outer { class Inner; }; class Outer::Inner { }; Compile. okay no problem. then, blablabla, then, including some header=20 files. but unfortunatly there is another global class named 'Inner' in=20 them(assuming the maker of the header files is insane...). Now what the=20 'class Inner;' in the definition scope of class Outer represents now? --=20 ---=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposa= ls/?hl=3Den. ------=_Part_34_11309744.1368039884227 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=E5=9C=A8 2013=E5=B9=B45=E6=9C=888=E6=97=A5=E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E4=B8= =89UTC-4=E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=882=E6=97=B636=E5=88=8645=E7=A7=92=EF=BC=8CHarihara= n Subramanian=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A


class C1 // ::C1
<= div>{
};

class Outer
{<= /div>
  class C1 // ::Outer::C1
  {
  };

<= div>  class C1; // Declaration of the ::Outer::C1 but not ::C1
};

There is no conflict h= ere.
Now, assuming if we plan to w= rite a inner class C1 and put its definition out of the class, how to sure = that no conflict will exist?
Like = the following steps:
step1: Creati= ng a new project, nothing but a entry functions in your source, then put th= e code here:

class Outer
{
  class Inner;
};

class Outer::Inner
{
};
Compile. okay no problem. then, blabla= bla, then, including some header files. but unfortunatly there is another g= lobal class named 'Inner' in them(assuming the maker of the header files is= insane...). Now what the 'class Inner;' in the definition scope of class O= uter represents now?

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-pro= posals/?hl=3Den.
 
 
------=_Part_34_11309744.1368039884227-- .