--- Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Again, I like the approach to not put in the core language > facilities that can be implemented with normal code but the order is: > first I see what I want to get, then I see if it can be implemented. > Here we seem to do the inverse: we see what can be done in current > C++, and if it is not enough (because I can't do access checking) we > are contented anyway. Seems a surrogate to me.
I want to clarify that this attitude depends on the fact that we are talking about something that will go into C++0x. If it was just boost code than we could all be contented with what normal C++ code can do; when it comes to something candidate to standardization instead the question is different. Genny. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
