David Abrahams wrote:
> Lastly, I know that Aleksey will argue with me about this,
Yep, I will :).
> but I have a strong preference for "class" rather than "typename" in
template
> parameter lists. Aside from the fact that it's longer, "typename" is
> visually confusable because it can mean other multiple things when it
> appears between <...>:
>
> template <typename T, typename U = typename metafunction<T>::type>
>
> vs
>
> template <class T, class U = typename metafunction<T>::type>
IMO it's more a problem with the layout of template parameters than with
anything else:
template<
typename T
, typename U = typename metafunction<T>::type
>
class her;
In short, my motivation for using 'typename's here is that I perceive the
'class' keyword as rather high-weight, semantically loaded, and prefer to
use it in its only original context - that is, for declaring/defining a
user-defined type that is more than a POD. Using it in other places cheapens
the word.
That's all subjective, of course.
Just clarifying my position :).
Aleksey
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
