Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!samsung!umich!vela!schemers From: schemers@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Roland Schemers III) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: virtually typed return values [WAS: the most dissatisfying part of c++] Message-ID: <2351@vela.acs.oakland.edu> Date: 2 Aug 90 18:03:14 GMT References: <27634@netnews.upenn.edu> <2314@vela.acs.oakland.edu> Reply-To: schemers@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Roland Schemers III) Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI Lines: 46 > >|In otherwords, make the return type 'virtual' like functions. > >This is nice in that it uses an already key word. However, this >would be too easily mixed up with people just forgetting to put >type names in their functions. > Yea, I realized the conflict with virtual functions after I sent the message. Plus: virtual virtual&method(); Is quite ugly!!!! >how about > > virtual class& method(); > >instead? "class" is already a keyword and it even sounds like what wouldn't this cause problems with functions like: virtual class X& method(); Where X is a class name? I'm not sure if this is legal syntax, but it seems to me you should be able to qualify the X with the class keyword. >But you're right, this sounds like the syntax proposed for templates, > so maybe they will solve this problem without this changed syntax. > I hope templates solve this problem, if not, maybe a new keyword plus some extra effort on the C++ translator/compiler is needed to solve this problem! > Reid > >Reid Ellis 264 Broadway Avenue, Toronto ON, M4P 1V9 Canada >rae@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu || rae%alias@csri.toronto.edu || +1 416 487 1383 -- Roland J. Schemers III Systems Programmer schemers@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Ultrix) Oakland University schemers@argo.acs.oakland.edu (VMS) Rochester, MI 48309-4401 "Get off your LEF and do something!" (313)-370-4323