RE: Headers and templated classes

[Chad Yates]

I also read that portable-cpp file a while ago and was actually appauled by
it.  It's my opinion that if compilers should be updated to the standard
(expected) functionality or new compilers should be found/used.  they pretty
much said not to use any of C++'s nice features, they may as well have said
just don't use C++.  Please don't let common c++ go that direction.

my 2 cents

,Chad

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden Behalf Of
> Albert Strasheim
> Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 6:25 AM
> To: David Sugar
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: Headers and templated classes
>
(snip)
> How many commercial compilers are still out there that handle templates
> poorly? I came across an interesting article, C++ portability guide,
> from mozilla.org,
>
> http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/portable-cpp.html
>
> They say to avoid templates. But also to avoid exceptions. (This was
> in 1998.) So I don't know where you draw the line. Personally, if
> you're not using gcc 3.2, you deserve to suffer, but I guess my
> philosophy doesn't work too well for an open source project. :-)
>
> It seems C++ templates have been around since 1995. So one has to ask
> the question: if your compiler doesn't support it after more than 8
> years, is it ever going to support it?
(snip)