On 1/28/2013 6:48 AM, Alec Teal wrote:
On 28/01/13 10:41, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 28 January 2013 06:18, Alec Teal wrote:
the very
nature of just putting the word "hard" before a typedef is something I find
appealing
I've already explained why that's not likely to be acceptable, because
identifiers are allowed before 'typedef' and it would be ambiguous.
You need a different syntax.

That is why I'd want both, but at least in my mind n3515 would be nearer to
"if I really wanted it I could use classes" than the hard-typedef.
I've already said N3515 is not about classes.
You keep missing the point of what I mean by "like classes" I mean in
terms of achieving the result, PLEASE think it though.

I have read this thread, and I see ZERO chance of this proposal being
accepted for inclusion into gcc at the current time.

Feel free to create your own version of gcc that has this feature (that
after all is what freedom in software is about) and promote it elsewhere
but it is really a waste of time to debate it further on this list.

The burden for non-standard language extensions in gcc is very high.
The current proposal is ambiguous and flawed, and in any case does not
begin to meet this high standard.

I think this thread should be allowed to RIP at this stage.

Reply via email to