Re: [cpp-netlib-devel] New Branch on Github

[Dean M. B. <mik...@gm...>]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Glyn Matthews <gly...@gm...> wrote:
>
> 2009/12/14 Dean Michael Berris <mik...@gm...>
>>
>>
>> Hmmm... That's odd. GCC 4.4 doesn't complain with the use case. I
>> think this is still valid if it's not a POD because it allows for
>> "static" initialization. I remember std::string can be statically
>> initialized (as in, during compile time) which is why this works.
>
> I'm not a language lawyer but as I understand it PODs have a trivial default
> constructor, which doesn't apply to `std::string`.  But as you explain,
> maybe you don't need it to be a POD to work.

Right. Not a language lawyer here too -- I trust what the compiler and
the tests say. Until I get my own copy of the C++ standard, I'll say
"if the tests say it's OK, then it should be OK". :)

>>
>> > I think nested classes could be a better approach, they will use the
>> > same
>> > tags as the server class anyway.
>> >
>>
>> I agree. However that would break code that's already using
>> http::request for the client -- unless i typedef http::request to be
>> by default http::basic_client<...>::request which is just ugly. That
>> said, I think we can still afford to break backwards compatibility
>> because, well, we're header only --  and breaking changes will cause
>> users to actively upgrade their usage. <insert evil laughter here> :D
>>
>
> IMO, we shouldn't be afraid to break backwards compatibility at this stage
> in development if the improvements are really valid.
>

Indeed. :)

> Regards,

Thanks! :D

-- 
Dean Michael Berris
blog.cplusplus-soup.com | twitter.com/mikhailberis
linkedin.com/in/mikhailberis | facebook.com/dean.berris | deanberris.com