220 2810 <298b9da3-717c-404a-9ed9-64f8319c106b@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nicol Bolas Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: minimal enum class improvements Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:44:13 -0800 (PST) Lines: 73 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <298b9da3-717c-404a-9ed9-64f8319c106b@isocpp.org> References: Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_301_11027089.1360601053466" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1360601059 2770 80.91.229.3 (11 Feb 2013 16:44:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:44:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ricardofabianodeandrade@gmail.com To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCEKFTV6ZUMBBXV74SEAKGQE6E2MCXA@isocpp.org Mon Feb 11 17:44:40 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-qc0-f199.google.com ([209.85.216.199]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1U4wUc-0004ES-R3 for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:44:35 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-qc0-f199.google.com with SMTP id p7sf10711450qcq.2 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:44:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:cc:message-id :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=3rupygzK7skRPsXK/NL2eXzuga2qmvPdTFflcgocnMg=; b=NRbbkgmfq4zBgYhz2v0QttionKLJHeLqgp1FgCQlVAZ8I40HeM1piHVjvShsI8lzWQ g5mqk64tvDrzd29whn4MmHQXWZ26xMSz3QgOHfRC7TeXK3KYt9E4Dojs5nJIycD0H5KL ueWwZKSGKiPiOvRSXDRntxoMoRRnSKDSLan+PJA0j9gK0c27iLj4ezYY/mchMnxJ9pMl GqZTyinWTP09XKNleZ9SVfq2oHSwx8g3XINFWcbieOWzXMc8XmwgrAVD1m57Jh1hrmO6 EA4f6T06Jyi5nrUF2Q8kqpOaJhWvqnx2CajO+pGODvOMYBclabsCBNWS+WhZUfg+5rFR eAIQ== X-Received: by 10.224.175.65 with SMTP id w1mr9362113qaz.7.1360601055086; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:44:15 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.49.62.233 with SMTP id b9ls1723194qes.13.gmail; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:44:13 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.49.75.195 with SMTP id e3mr1030325qew.24.1360601053935; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:44:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: jmckesson@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:2810 Archived-At: ------=_Part_301_11027089.1360601053466 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Monday, February 11, 2013 5:55:35 AM UTC-8, ricardofabi...@gmail.com wrote: > > One final question: instead going to SG7 (reflection) or SG9 (ranges) > should this proposal go directly to the EWG? > > > This is such a small improvement in terms of complexity and impact in the > C++ language but it has the potential of improving a lot the readability > and maintainability of any code which depends on enum to work properly. > It may be a "small improvement", but it is also unquestionably *reflection*. Which is something that's being actively pursued. What we don't want is an independent proposal introducing a reflection mechanism that works contrary to whatever mechanism SG7 comes up with. So it should go to them, but really, I don't see why you'd need to propose it. Whatever reflection mechanisms they come up with will include enum reflection. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/?hl=en. ------=_Part_301_11027089.1360601053466 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Monday, February 11, 2013 5:55:35 AM UTC-8, ricardofabi...@gmail= ..com wrote:
One final question: ins= tead going to SG7 (reflection) or SG9 (ranges) should this proposal go dire= ctly to the EWG?

This is such a small = improvement in terms of complexity and impact in the C++ language but it ha= s the potential of improving a lot the readability and maintainability=  of any code which depends on en= um to work properly.

It may be a "small i= mprovement", but it is also unquestionably reflection. Which is some= thing that's being actively pursued. What we don't want is an independent p= roposal introducing a reflection mechanism that works contrary to whatever = mechanism SG7 comes up with. So it should go to them, but really, I don't s= ee why you'd need to propose it. Whatever reflection mechanisms they come u= p with will include enum reflection.

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-pro= posals/?hl=3Den.
 
 
------=_Part_301_11027089.1360601053466-- .