220 4247 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ville Voutilainen Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Fixing Standard Library relational operators (was: Re: optional Rev.4 (N3672): What was the rationale to remove !=, >=, ...) Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 22:34:36 +0300 Lines: 61 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <5f236e41-0f5f-4288-a80f-9eadb5168c38@isocpp.org> <21f24461-2f6a-42b4-93c9-76702aa8dedc@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013a1978f6608e04dbd5707a X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1367609681 28272 80.91.229.3 (3 May 2013 19:34:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 19:34:41 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC5JHI7A7ALRBTNCSCGAKGQEKFDCEWQ@isocpp.org Fri May 03 21:34:41 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ie0-f198.google.com ([209.85.223.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UYLkc-0006ue-Pa for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 21:34:39 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-ie0-f198.google.com with SMTP id e11sf10044366iej.1 for ; Fri, 03 May 2013 12:34:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:received-spf:mime-version :x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=4/iCAjniljGsPqU11FXSsNS8p3e3A2Lo6CM8GXpsJpc=; b=J5oMnMGVzVXw/F5GXDFKWKm+/HR8ZQTIbA71e9DcXFXQiy5/9dtdtMmtkwhA2vH1Z3 2yeUvcmitxBZbqk5ubQ7Tte71Psg872sB8+OyCIae3GEOTAFJCVy3PLibbg3hP9L16tN lfVOcp7pU6Zako1r6TVl+81Lq4E1DB6RM4x4xia47P6qV484KnQU2W32JooKGUcDmUzV m3ZgI/ZLarentvXxy7cSE5KWiPld7NlVMYvIc3vcXaPO6jqjplxGsI9J6AChs7mUSZo0 dr0gIAbNMSZNREWiYsAIuboDW2iR7A4ZVqv4JoF4meeL7A+miiB+WWNcSHuORhSAeltC X-Received: by 10.182.87.161 with SMTP id az1mr9870496obb.26.1367609677861; Fri, 03 May 2013 12:34:37 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.182.130.138 with SMTP id oe10ls295430obb.37.gmail; Fri, 03 May 2013 12:34:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.148.130 with SMTP id ts2mr3124877oeb.115.1367609676690; Fri, 03 May 2013 12:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-ob0-x22f.google.com (mail-ob0-x22f.google.com [2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22f]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id pb5si3032971obb.94.2013.05.03.12.34.36 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 03 May 2013 12:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22f as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22f; Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f175.google.com with SMTP id wd20so590945obb.20 for ; Fri, 03 May 2013 12:34:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.120.134 with SMTP id lc6mr3336330obb.34.1367609676552; Fri, 03 May 2013 12:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.76.10.130 with HTTP; Fri, 3 May 2013 12:34:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <21f24461-2f6a-42b4-93c9-76702aa8dedc@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: ville.voutilainen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22f as permitted sender) smtp.mail=ville.voutilainen@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@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:4247 Archived-At: --089e013a1978f6608e04dbd5707a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 3 May 2013 22:27, DeadMG wrote: > As was raised repeatedly in Bristol, none of those types are types that > try to be as close to the original type as possible, unlike optional. > Personally, I think that optional is more like a T than a tuple. > > > > Perhaps so. So what? What's your point? -- --- 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. --089e013a1978f6608e04dbd5707a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On 3 May 2013 22:27, DeadMG <wolfeinstein@gmail.com> wrote:
As was raised repeatedly in Bristol, none of= those types are types that try to be as close to the original type as poss= ible, unlike optional. Personally, I think that optional<T> is more l= ike a T than a tuple<T>.




Perhaps so. So what? W= hat's your point?

--
 
---
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.
 
 
--089e013a1978f6608e04dbd5707a-- .