On 12/12/2011, Paolo Carlini wrote: > On 12/11/2011 04:05 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> ping > In my opinion __is_final would be definitely useful in general, for 4.8, > and 4.7 too, if isn't too late.
As we've got the final keyword in 4.7 I think we really want __is_final in the front end too. > As regards the wider issue which is being discussed on the reflector - > beware, I didn't follow all the messages - 'final' disabling a nice > optimization like EBO makes me very nervous. Really, doesn't seem part > of the intended general philosophy in this area. There must be a way to > overcome the annoyance. Last resort, if suggestions like having 'final' > not forbidding private derivation cannot go through, we could imagine a > GCC attribute reverting the effect of 'final' for people (library > writers ;) knowing what they are doing. I don't know. I think being able to detect a final class is good enough for now, until we find out if there are real problems being encountered as people make more use of C++11.
