On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 12:14:09 -0500, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'd rather settle on one for the sake of simplicity and see if it's >enough for people. Once you provide two interfaces, you're sort of >stuck supporting them both. Well, then I imagine you would prefer the old semantics. Was there anybody complaining that being not enough? Maybe however it would be nice to see if we find an use for the new semantics. I don't know what it could be but probably knowing that private or ambiguous base classes are detectable without errors will encourage someone to find an use for that. This wouldn't certainly be a new experience for C++, since it has happened with templates or e.g. with function call expressions as operand of sizeof. Similarly knowing widely unknown rules about conversion ranking allowed Rani to find their application. In fact, the 'old' version is implementable in terms of the new one, but not with compilers that can't digest the latter, of course. The maintenance/supporting burden you refer to seems mainly due to broken compilers :-/ Genny. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost