«

Hello,

Does the C++ standard allow default parameters when defining a typedef for a
function type, e.g.

typedef void (*TYPE_Report)(const char* message, const char* details = 0);

This was accepted by MS Visual C++ 6.0, but is rejected in Visual Studio
..NET 2003.
I assume that this change might be because Visual Studio .NET is more C++
standard compliant than previous versions were.
Is this correct?

Is there any way to use default parameters for function types?

thanks
Günter

"Schwarzbauer Günter" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Hello,
>
> Does the C++ standard allow default parameters when defining a typedef for
a
> function type, e.g.
>
> typedef void (*TYPE_Report)(const char* message, const char* details = 0);
>
> This was accepted by MS Visual C++ 6.0, but is rejected in Visual Studio
> .NET 2003.
> I assume that this change might be because Visual Studio .NET is more C++
> standard compliant than previous versions were.
> Is this correct?

Yes.

>
> Is there any way to use default parameters for function types?

Not that I know of.

================================================== =================
ISO/IEC 14882:1998(E)

8.3.6 Default arguments

3 A default argument expression shall be specified only in the
parameter-*declaration*-clause of a function declaration or in
a template*-parameter (14.1). If it is specified in a parameter*-
declaration*-clause, it shall not occur within a declarator or
abstract*-declarator of a parameter*-declaration.(8


(8 This means that default arguments cannot appear, for
example, in declarations of pointers to functions, references
to functions, or typedef declarations.
================================================== =================

-Mike

"Mike Wahler" <> wrote in message
news:cFqXc.1082$ nk.net...
>
> "Schwarzbauer Günter" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > Hello,
> >
> > Does the C++ standard allow default parameters when defining a
> > typedef for a function type?
> Yes.

Mike , thanks for the quick answer...

>
> >
> > Is there any way to use default parameters for function types?
>
> Not that I know of.

.... although I don't like it.


Seems like this was no accident, but a deliberate decision.
Does someone know why this was decided this way?

Günter

Schwarzbauer Günter wrote:
> [...]
> Seems like this was no accident, but a deliberate decision.
> Does someone know why this was decided this way?

If somebody does, it would be in comp.std.c++.

V