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
