Ok to ammend that, I'm not trying to be hostile. I'm really just looking for sympathy :P, perhaps that would have been better found else where. Adruab On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 14:46, Adrian Bentley wrote: > Yeah, ok, fine, it's nice to see that no one else finds this > irritating. I fixed it already, but it is a hack (generics are supposed > to be elegant...). > > However, gcc still seems to be inconsistent. The reason why the second > one worked, was that I had two functions (one with a 3rd argument and > one without). Shouldn't it cause a warning or something if it's > ignoring a default argument like that, and there's a second function > with the exact same first two? I mean sure it can all be chalked up to > template weirdness, but sheesh. > > In the end these are all just work arounds for not being able to have > default template arguments for functions (which should have been fixed > long ago). Standards are good, but it seems to be becoming more and > more inflexible, but perhaps that is just me being confused. > > Thanks for the smackdown folks (slightly enlightening though it was), > I'll be sure to just fix what I've got in the future. > > Adruab > > On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 01:05, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:49:51AM -0700, Adrian Bentley wrote: > > > > > Yeah, ok. I really do know what I'm talking about with C++, I just > > > haven't > > > been able to get it to do what I want :P. And I figured it was > > > something > > > like that (with respect to interpreting...), but why would it work so > > > easily > > > for the other case? (and yes just calling with the two parameters works > > > just > > > fine...) > > > > I can't get the code you posted (incomplete as it was) to compile with > > GCC 2.95, 3.3, 3.4, or with Comeau's compiler. > > > > > I definitely know MANY ways to get around it, but it still makes generic > > > programming WAY more of a pain in the ass if you can't let it figure > > > things > > > like that out for itself. > > > > The solution I posted does what you want, with little extra code. Making > > it do it your way would require a change to the language, which is > > unnecessary since you can achieve the desired effect as I showed. > > > > > Without the functionality of deriving the template for a default > > > argument, > > > which seems pretty straight forward to me by the way, it makes that a > > > fairly > > > gross limitation of gcc (lack of function specialization AND lack of > > > ability > > > to intuit from a default parameter). I know there could be some issues > > > depending on the order the compiler goes through the steps, but man... > > > it > > > doesn't seem that complicated (I don't have any specific reference in > > > Bjarne > > > or anything...). > > > > You never said which version of the compiler you had tried, but it doesn't > > matter as GCC is right to reject the code you posted. > > > > > So should I submit this as a bug then? It seems like the compiler > > > should be > > > able to do that (since it can't do def. template arguments for > > > functions). > > > > That's the rules of the language. As llewelly said, see 14.8.2.4/17. > > > > Calling a function template with no arguments and without explicitly > > stating which specialisation you want means that the compiler cannot > > deduce the parameters. This is not a limitation of GCC. > > > > > Of course if they add default template arguments for functions... then > > > it > > > would be fine. Suggestions? > > > > You could submit a proposal for a language change to the standards > > committee (but don't hold your breath for it to be accepted). > > > > jon > > >
