"Alisdair Meredith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| > I know the proposals did not dig into all the corner cases -- and I
| > don't even know whether they considered the case. But, at some point,
| > someone has to go through the sheer number of proposals and try to
| >
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> I know the proposals did not dig into all the corner cases -- and I
> don't even know whether they considered the case. But, at some point,
> someone has to go through the sheer number of proposals and try to
> paint a global picture and see how they interact with existi
"Alisdair Meredith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| > The issue was whether GNU g++ uses it as an *implementation detail*
| > that will be affected if constructors suddenly became recursive.
|
| I was not aware the proposal supported recursive constructors - in the
| se
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> The issue was whether GNU g++ uses it as an *implementation detail*
> that will be affected if constructors suddenly became recursive.
I was not aware the proposal supported recursive constructors - in the
sense that the syntax I saw had no obvious way to terminate any
r
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| >In standard C++, constructors cannot be recursive functions. I'm
| > wondering whether the multiple entry-points implementation strategy used
| > by GCC depends in anyway on the absence of recursive definition.
|
| Ech
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>In standard C++, constructors cannot be recursive functions. I'm
> wondering whether the multiple entry-points implementation strategy used
> by GCC depends in anyway on the absence of recursive definition.
Echoing others, I do not forsee any problem with multiple en
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 01:50:35PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
| >
| > On Sep 19, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| >
| > >
| > >Hi,
| > >
| > > We're assessing many proposals to add "forwarding constructors" and
| > >forwarding functio
Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sep 19, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| >
| > Hi,
| >
| >We're assessing many proposals to add "forwarding constructors" and
| > forwarding functions to C++0x; and I got a question.
| >
| >In standard C++, constructors cannot be
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 01:50:35PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Sep 19, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> > We're assessing many proposals to add "forwarding constructors" and
> >forwarding functions to C++0x; and I got a question.
> >
> > In standard C++, con
On Sep 19, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Hi,
We're assessing many proposals to add "forwarding constructors" and
forwarding functions to C++0x; and I got a question.
In standard C++, constructors cannot be recursive functions. I'm
wondering whether the multiple entry-point
Hi,
We're assessing many proposals to add "forwarding constructors" and
forwarding functions to C++0x; and I got a question.
In standard C++, constructors cannot be recursive functions. I'm
wondering whether the multiple entry-points implementation strategy used
by GCC depends in anyway o
11 matches
Mail list logo
