Mark Hartoog wrote: > What is your position on forward typedefs? Are forward typedefs > a type with "first-class status"? > > The reason I ask is that in Mantis 1500 there was an attempt to > limit the use of forward typedefs so that they could only be > used to declare a class handle and for no other purpose. This > proposal was never approved by the BC committee, but it does > appear to represent a decidedly second class type status for > forward typedefs. My reasons for wanting to treat forward types a bit differently were primarily due to their presence in compilation units and the resulting impact on design unit based compilation strategies when dealing with very large designs. Such concerns are primarily efficiency and scalability concerns, not semantic concerns or issues with implementation. I also would have liked to structurally limit some forms of type circularity that become more likely traps, but as everyone has noted, implementations have to deal with the general problem anyways. Since there was an apparent desire for the generality, that trumps my other concerns and at this point I'm fully prepared to deal with forward typedefs in the same manner as any other type. Gord. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Oct 17 07:00:15 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 17 2007 - 07:00:56 PDT