"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| "Gabriel Dos Reis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > [...]
| > More accurately, there are *two* notions being considered:
| >
| > 1) typedef template;
| > 2) template aliasing -- the thingy Andrei is missing.
|
| Could you clue us in on the current consensus?
There is no formal vote about these thingies yet.
| You would still express 2) using template typedefs, right?
Not really. A (very convincing) argument made by Daveed Vandevoorde
is to get rid of the keyword "typedef" when one talks about "template
aliasing" because that does not introduce any type-name: Rather it
introduces a template-name, synonymous for a family of type-names.
You may say
template<typename T>
Vec = std::vector<T, MyAlloc<T> >;
| Is it possible or likely that the
| proposal
| will be altered to be more inclusive?
Oh well, I believe we're very far from any actual definitive form of
"template typedef" or "template aliasing".
-- Gaby
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
