Ireneusz Szpilewski <i...@szpilewski.opole.pl> writes: > I have 2 ideas about C++ language, maybe they could be implemented as > GCC C++ extensions (Microsoft has many his own and no one > complains). :-)
We generally do not want to implement language extensions. It takes a strong argument to convince us. Also, as a practical matter, we are extremely unlikely to implement an extension ourselves. So realistically you need to 1) send us a patch; 2) convince us that it is worth the ongoing maintenance hassle. > 1. void as first class type > > Current status of void is somewhat strange. It is a type but you > cannot create objects of type void. > So, it is type of what? But you can have memory pointer to void, so > object (or array) of type void > has its memory position but cannot be here created. Pointer > arithmetics for void* is forbidden. > Despite this all, we are allowed to use void as a template type > parameter. It is not elegant and > makes C/C++ harder to understand for beginners. I don't find this argument to be convincing. Sorry. When would I create an object of type void? Why would I create it? > Here is my idea - lets add "callback" pointer data type. It would > require to introduce > new data type symbol: @. Internally it would contain 2 pointers: > pointer to object and pointer to member of that object. As far as I can tell you can write that type yourself. I'm not sure what has to change in the compiler. It sounds a lot like std::tr1::bind. Ian
