im sorry for not being pecific but i wasnt talking about template specialization i was talking about defining variables... Tho its been a along time since i used "typename<> variable".
Sorry again for not being pecific. Im not sure if its any diffrent now from the last time that i used VC++ with default template parameters
And your right there is a work around but its really annoying using ::T bit, and i get tangled in giving the classes the name i wanted to give.
The only attribute I've ever used is GNU's "unused" to avoid a warning on static functions that don't get called. At present I don't believe VS2005 warns for that, so I haven't needed the MS version. That said, if there *were* a standard specification for such things, I might use them more often.
One of the things I hate doing is writing code that ties me to a particular compiler. I always #ifdef such code and provide alternatives when it's necessary, but that can get messy. So anything that reduces the need to do that is a good thing.
I have to agree with Lindley on this one [yes, it does happen. ].
For the "standard" attributes which have a direct (or very close) mapping to the existing Visual C++ attributes, it would be a BIG help if the standard syntax was supported [this should primarilty impact the lexical analysis and not the internals of the compiler].
For those which do not match, having them parsed and either generating a "non-supported" error, or an "ignored" warning (ideally configurable between the two) would be a great help in keeping source code "clean".
TheCPUWizard is a registered trademark, all rights reserved. (If this post was helpful, please RATE it!)
2008, 2009 In theory, there is no difference between theory and paractice; in practice there is.
* Join the fight, refuse to respond to posts that contain code outside of [code] ... [/code] tags. See here for instructions
* How NOT to post a question here
* Of course you read this carefully before you posted
* Need homework help? Read this first