From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Subject: Re: Dynamic array allocation and STL equivalents?
Date: 12 Feb 2005 13:52:17 -0500
Date: 2005-02-12T13:52:17-05:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <wccekflmx0e.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: otmmmy3rsvvv.aedk4cjbs02u$.dlg@40tude.net
"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> I have an impression that C++ resolution rules are strictly bottom-up,
> ...
Yes. I believe that's why C++ has the kludge of putting "L" or "U" at
the end of an integer literal. The resolution rules can't tell the
intended type from the context. (The implicit conversion rules add
some confusion on top of all that.)
That kind of kludge wouldn't work for Ada, where there are more than a
few integer types around the place!
It's also nice that Ada allows overloaded enumeration literals
and string literals.
- Bob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-02-12 18:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-02-11 13:06 Dynamic array allocation and STL equivalents? brian.b.mcguinness
2005-02-11 13:43 ` Jeff C
2005-02-14 15:23 ` Marc A. Criley
2005-02-11 14:41 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2005-02-11 15:50 ` Adrien Plisson
2005-02-11 17:47 ` REH
2005-02-12 9:28 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2005-02-12 18:52 ` Robert A Duff [this message]
2005-02-11 17:24 ` Bobby D. Bryant
2005-02-12 0:06 ` Robert A Duff
2005-02-12 3:45 ` Bobby D. Bryant
2005-02-11 18:07 ` Matthew Heaney
2005-02-11 18:36 ` Martin Krischik
2005-02-11 19:35 ` brian.b.mcguinness
2005-02-12 1:04 ` Jeffrey Carter
2005-02-12 6:19 ` Bobby D. Bryant
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox