------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-09-07 19:33 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Unfortunatly I don't believe thats possible without passing > extra information by more template parameters, which would break binary > compatability.
I'm not going to discuss now the substance of this issue (hopefully soon!) but I don't think the binary compatibility thing is obviously true. When two different object modules are built, each one can use the appropriate constructor, and there are no risks of mixups when (possible) weak symbols are merged because the signatures would be different in this case (a very nasty issue instead is when you change *only* the return type of a function, in that case, as Geoff kindly reminded us, there are risks because the sig is the same!) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23767
