Re: We have a new standard!

Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 08:40:47 -0500
Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wibbled:

Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>

On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 20:08:00 +0200
Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> wibbled:

On 04.01.2025 04:06, Sam wrote:

void my_algorithm(algorithm_info_t &) throws(AlgoThrownClasses)

>
That's the first good idea from you in this discussion. I still do not
see much point in exception specifications, but such a typedef would at
least make life easier for me on this Alternate Earth.
>
PS. Nowadays they prefer `using` instead of `typedef`.

>
I never understood the point of that. Why not increase the semantic scope
of "typedef" instead of having 2 keywords that in a lot of circumstances
do the same thing?

>
Because using is a nicer to read?

>
Who knows. The C++ committee certainly has form on this - typename replaced
class in template definitions when they realised 10 years after everyone else
that reusing class in that particular case was somewhat confusing.

Stroustrup in section 23.2 of his 4th edition C++ book notes that
these two are equivalent:

    template<typename X>
    template<class X>

but that for typename X, X need not be a class.


--
Telling the truth to people who misunderstand you is generally promoting
a falsehood, isn't it?
-- A. Hope