Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: We have a new standard! Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 14:04:34 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: Injection-Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2025 15:04:34 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8c5e3bb50f8ae50dc4390f343511cdc4"; logging-data="2358033"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19sf94ExspeCk5P4uxtxPUM" Cancel-Lock: sha1:FAlH/UX+1xps/a1KpLttBdE4JJU= Bytes: 2255 On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 08:40:47 -0500 Chris Ahlstrom wibbled: >Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: > >> On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 20:08:00 +0200 >> Paavo Helde wibbled: >>>On 04.01.2025 04:06, Sam wrote: >>>> void my_algorithm(algorithm_info_t &) throws(AlgoThrownClasses) >>> >>>That's the first good idea from you in this discussion. I still do not >>>see much point in exception specifications, but such a typedef would at >>>least make life easier for me on this Alternate Earth. >>> >>>PS. Nowadays they prefer `using` instead of `typedef`. >> >> I never understood the point of that. Why not increase the semantic scope >> of "typedef" instead of having 2 keywords that in a lot of circumstances >> do the same thing? > >Because using is a nicer to read? Who knows. The C++ committee certainly has form on this - typename replaced class in template definitions when they realised 10 years after everyone else that reusing class in that particular case was somewhat confusing.