Re: Headers and templated classes

[David Sugar]

I am actually away until tomorrow, but I want to think about both these 
issues...

On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Federico Montesino Pouzols wrote:

> 
>       Restarting the discussion on the CC++ templates, anyway with
> the current directory layout there does not seem to be a clear way to
> include tests/demos for the templates. Should we move the templates to
> the general headers directory, at least in 1.1?
> 
>       Also, when UberCounter gets in cc++ 1.1, we will have
> templates in ccgnu2...
> 
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 08:31:10AM -0500, David Sugar wrote:
> > Ah yes, the mozilla c++ recommendations...
> > 
> > We may choose to keep the ccgnu2 half very clean in large part to enable 
> > one 
> > to build very compact applications with Common C++, but I do not think we 
> > ever got that anal even in that.  If anything, as practices and compilers 
> > improve, we will continue to make greater use of the C++ language standard 
> > in 
> > full.  However, the reality is that many broken compilers and poor std 
> > library/stl implimentations still remain in everyday use so we do have to 
> > pick and choose what language features we will make use of extensivily and 
> > which we will not.  I much prefer isolating language features with 
> > troublesome implimention history rather than excluding them, which is why 
> > we 
> > had the templates library segregated, for example, or extensive facilities 
> > to 
> > built with or without exception handling. 
> > 
> > On Friday 03 January 2003 01:37, Chad Yates wrote:
> > > I also read that portable-cpp file a while ago and was actually appauled 
> > > by
> > > it.  It's my opinion that if compilers should be updated to the standard
> > > (expected) functionality or new compilers should be found/used.  they
> > > pretty much said not to use any of C++'s nice features, they may as well
> > > have said just don't use C++.  Please don't let common c++ go that
> > > direction.
> > >
> > > my 2 cents
> > >
> > > ,Chad
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: address@hidden
> > > > [mailto:address@hidden Behalf Of
> > > > Albert Strasheim
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 6:25 AM
> > > > To: David Sugar
> > > > Cc: address@hidden
> > > > Subject: Re: Headers and templated classes
> > >
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > > How many commercial compilers are still out there that handle templates
> > > > poorly? I came across an interesting article, C++ portability guide,
> > > > from mozilla.org,
> > > >
> > > > http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/portable-cpp.html
> > > >
> > > > They say to avoid templates. But also to avoid exceptions. (This was
> > > > in 1998.) So I don't know where you draw the line. Personally, if
> > > > you're not using gcc 3.2, you deserve to suffer, but I guess my
> > > > philosophy doesn't work too well for an open source project. :-)
> > > >
> > > > It seems C++ templates have been around since 1995. So one has to ask
> > > > the question: if your compiler doesn't support it after more than 8
> > > > years, is it ever going to support it?
> > >
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Bug-commoncpp mailing list
> > > address@hidden
> > > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-commoncpp
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bug-commoncpp mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-commoncpp
>