16 Jan
2010
16 Jan
'10
4:37 a.m.
of course, when you read the error messages they say just that. Thanks
for the fix.
yes, it's insane. It's a good laugh, though.
Victor
On 16 Jan 2010, at 01:25, Dominic Sacré wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Victor Lazzarini
<Victor.Lazzarini(a)nuim.ie> wrote:
Torben's new project brought back to my
mind this mind-bending C++
template example (see attached), which I could not yet get to
compile, I
have been told it has been compiled, but g++ will have none of it.
So I
still have doubts on whether it includes legal C++ code or not. But
it is an
interesting example (even if it does not build) of what (possibly)
can be
done with templates.
My question to the list is: has anyone managed to compile this code?
Wow, that's insane. But as far as I can tell, it is (almost) valid
C++. What gcc rightly complains about are a couple of missing typename
keywords. That's actually a pretty common mistake, because it's hard
to understand why these are even necessary, and some compilers simply
don't care.
The attached version of the file compiles fine with gcc, and the
program gives the correct answer.
Dominic
<prime.cpp>