On 8/13/10 6:46 PM, Lars Viklund wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:10:23PM +0200, Stefan Strasser wrote:
Zitat von Joel de Guzman<joel@boost-consulting.com>:
C'mon guys! We're venturing into the name-game land! If that's the game, then we should shout out why C++ confusingly has "struct" and "class" anyway which both have very little nuance. I don't want to go there. Sorry. This is not going to be another bike-shed issue.
that's a lot of confusion for a still undocumented bike-shed.
For what it's worth, the first time I saw the macro mentioned on-list, I wondered why you needed a special macro for classes when you had a perfectly fine one for structs.
Due to the fine distinction between struct/class, naming it _CLASS_ would be doing everyone a disservice as it gives it connotations it shouldn't have.
As for what it should be named, I won't suggest anything, as long as it's less ambigious.
Ok, fair enough. But as long as I don't see a better substitute, the name will stand. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net