6 Jun
2005
6 Jun
'05
4:48 p.m.
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 10:43 +0200, Tim Goetze wrote:
<snip/>
What I have is this (from caps code):
class DescriptorStub
: public LADSPA_Descriptor
{
/* just a constructor and destructor here */
};
template <class T>
class Descriptor
: public DescriptorStub
{
public:
Descriptor()
{ setup(); }
void setup();
...
};
The following is OK for an older g++:
void
Descriptor<AmpIV>::setup()
{
UniqueID = 1794;
...
}
but g++ since 4.0 wants this instead:
template <> void
Descriptor<AmpIV>::setup()
{
...
}
I cannot for the life of me imagine a good reason why "template <>"
should be necessary. "setup()" was never declared as a template, let
alone one with an empty template parameter.
If this is indeed prescribed by the language standard, I'll have a
very, very hard time getting over it.
It may not look like much but you have to understand
that to me coding
is also an exercise in aesthetics.
Then perhaps you shouldn't be cracking this little nut with the
sledgehammer of template specialisation, regardless of whether g++ used
to supply a non-standard one with a shorter handle? ;)
How about adding the unique IDs as static member constants to AmpIV and
its brethren like this:
class AmpIV {
...
public:
static const unsigned UniqueID = 1794;
...
};
...which your Descriptor template can pick up without using any
specialisation like this:
template <class T>
class Descriptor
: public DescriptorStub
{
public:
Descriptor() { UniqueID = T::UniqueID; }
...
};
Just a thought.
Cheers
Simon