220 2811 <585e24ba-7894-4a28-ad75-5cee2b8b375e@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ricardofabianodeandrade@gmail.com Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: minimal enum class improvements Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:24:00 -0800 (PST) Lines: 90 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <585e24ba-7894-4a28-ad75-5cee2b8b375e@isocpp.org> References: <298b9da3-717c-404a-9ed9-64f8319c106b@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1285_29905042.1360614240308" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1360614244 6448 80.91.229.3 (11 Feb 2013 20:24:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:24:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ricardofabianodeandrade@gmail.com To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCJN7V7TRQMBBYNG4WEAKGQEGX75QYY@isocpp.org Mon Feb 11 21:24:25 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-yh0-f69.google.com ([209.85.213.69]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1U4zvJ-0008DD-Cs for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 21:24:21 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-yh0-f69.google.com with SMTP id w68sf5200842yhw.0 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:24:01 -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=/EtJdZGUTQ5Znw7L908fRpUXol3vkLuwPl1mBR0EU0c=; b=NX5ZzmHY7UNRpdOv6/VcOsUf+pXDJwNCrKi/BfAPfL91m8Os5CrXAnPKweei8MtvJJ f2Ly4KkKX2SqmT3ylpLBX2+jd/3boX3+Q06a7dFg8mOq6SyjSYqknpHbfPfHDRi7OEYP 9eo9u0NyZPlvUJ5NolehWzQNs7zCrWbMAXhLHgKtqp5vQasb3kaVBYQuhdLPdO6Do6fI E2tHJxYtH/FzTI4iM00COJpeLn8TAHs+yPB/QokUFdmBrqn4MapNGCkwaW5JYbaVjibE i+mYiDxJqRpHRO4gegQGZWtwXFoXGljTshESX2ACAAib882PtmRfWH6cGth9bWAtaeW+ AnCw== X-Received: by 10.236.181.34 with SMTP id k22mr7203211yhm.7.1360614241351; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:24:01 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.49.35.169 with SMTP id i9ls1891415qej.42.gmail; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:24:00 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.49.81.72 with SMTP id y8mr1134557qex.42.1360614240657; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:24:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <298b9da3-717c-404a-9ed9-64f8319c106b@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: ricardofabianodeandrade@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:2811 Archived-At: ------=_Part_1285_29905042.1360614240308 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Nicol, I hope we are not seeing another "concepts" case here. I'll keep myself updated on the SG7 work. Thanks for your reply. Ricardo On Monday, February 11, 2013 2:44:13 PM UTC-2, Nicol Bolas wrote: > > > > On Monday, February 11, 2013 5:55:35 AM UTC-8, ricardofabi...@gmail.comwrote: >> >> 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_1285_29905042.1360614240308 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Nicol,

I hope we are not seeing another "concepts" ca= se here.
I'll keep myself updated on the SG7 work.

=
Thanks for your reply.
Ricardo


On Mo= nday, February 11, 2013 2:44:13 PM UTC-2, Nicol Bolas wrote:


On Monday, February 11, 2013 5:55:35 = AM UTC-8, ricardofabi...@gmail.com wrote:
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 th= at 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 ref= lection mechanisms they come up 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_1285_29905042.1360614240308-- .