Vicente BOTET <vicente.botet <at> wanadoo.fr> writes: ...
The classes I expect to be used are regular classes with value semantics.
Our classes with value- and pointer-semantics (pimpl-based) are as regular/normal. They just happen to be not your classes.
When I used regular classes I was not referring to normal or abnormal classes, but what Adobe ASL and Stepanov call regular types. Sorry for the imprecision.
Ah, I thought you used 'regular' casually. Apologies.
You can assimilate a regular class as one that behaves like a built-in type. But, please see [snipped the URL] for more information) or google for Fundamentals of Generic Programming, regular types, Stepanov.
Yes, I am aware of the paper. In the "Summary" it says: "In this paper, we have investigated several of the fundamental operations on built-in types in C++, and identified characteristics they should have when applied to user-defined types." In typical Russian style Stepanov pursues something he believes in with a vigor. However, "built-in characteristics applied to user-defined types" is something I seriously believe is mis-guided even though I understand the desire to simplify and unify. It's unrealistic to expect complex user-defined types to fit in the Procrustean bed of built-ins. IMO is should be the other way around... and I believe that was the original C++ understanding (see Stroustrup "Evolution"). V.