On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 20:25:35 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2012 15:48:22 -0400, Mehrdad
<wfunct...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm looking at this:
m += 5; // ok
m = m + 5; // error
And thinking, hm.. this is no good :)
Yeah, that means they were implemented poorly. :P
It should've been an error for both, because neither of them make
sense.
I don't see why the first one couldn't have been an error though,
so I guess I'll have to dig up old threads on why the first one
wasn't disallowed, since I can't see why we couldn't just
disallow it right there...
C compatibility is not what we are after here, alias already
handles C compatibility.
I see, ok.
Not being one to have used them much, I can only recollect that
one example. I do remember people bitching about them quite a
bit, and nobody really having any good ideas on how to fix
them, but I don't know circa what time period to look for those
discussons. One person who was an ardent supporter of
typedefs, and still wants *something* like them is bearophile.
He might be able to list some issues/find some old posts/bugs
that make more sense.
Ah okay thanks.
@bearophile: If you see happen this, would you mind posting
examples? :)
