Richard Kenner wrote:
>> I'm very suspicious of allowing users to specify this via attributes.
>> Having pointers-to-objects or pointers-to-functions with different sizes
>> (within one of those classes) seems problematic, but perhaps you can say
>> more about how you expect this to work in the presence of conversions
>> and such.
> 
> I think there's some confusion here.

> So you need to be able to express the interfaces to both of these and
> that requires both pointer sizes.

The confusion is perhaps that you're thinking that my statement that we
need to specify the semantics is clearly implies that I don't think it's
 a useful feature?  I do think it's a useful feature, but I also think
that you can't just drop it into C++ without thinking about all the
consequences of that action.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(650) 331-3385 x713

Reply via email to