4 ms·
By accident as in the creators didn't intend it but it was discovered later, or just not directly expressible in the language (so "by accident" is via anthropom
by fjsolwmv 8y ago
By accident as in the creators didn't intend it but it was discovered later, or just not directly expressible in the language (so "by accident" is via anthropomorphism of the type language)?
- knome 8y agohttp://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#understand http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#understand > I was very surprised when Jeremy Siek first showed my the compile-time if that later became std::conditional, but I had aimed for generalty (and gotten Turing completeness modulo translation limits). I opposed restrictions to C++ immediately when Erwin Unruh presented what is widly believed to be the first template metaprogram to the ISO Standards committee's evolution working group. To kill template-metaprogramming, all I would have had to do was to say nothing Discovered by users after being created as a side effect of the power of the template expansion defined by the committee, and then kept thereafter.
- Negitivefrags 8y agoI would say that you are misrepresenting the thing you are quoting. It was a side effect yes, but it’s not like a working compiler was released and a users found this. It was discovered during the design phase of templates by people involved in standardisation process. And it sounds like leaving it in was even a contentious point that others were against. So far from an accident, it was a feature that was extensively discussed and intentionally supported.