220 4278 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tony V E 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: Sat, 4 May 2013 11:16:45 -0400 Lines: 127 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <5f236e41-0f5f-4288-a80f-9eadb5168c38@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01184510ac00d004dbe5f4df X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1367680609 8954 80.91.229.3 (4 May 2013 15:16:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 15:16:49 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCUZ5QWKNQIN5TEURQCRUBHP2I7XG@isocpp.org Sat May 04 17:16:49 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-wi0-f198.google.com ([209.85.212.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UYeCd-0002SG-Kf for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Sat, 04 May 2013 17:16:47 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-wi0-f198.google.com with SMTP id hq12sf2325428wib.5 for ; Sat, 04 May 2013 08:16:47 -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=/WOYj5ClfERExLAvoL1BvZ/yxrXSAA95tNMBKv7E65M=; b=A+jOz2XM/GvQ4QB88mxut7C0xU59AcZVrFp8XIjv31QBa9zwBBSZGiTjBrLxu46ExB 4zkikDFSLn/yOc2satdOB92F3DPpYDzUsAqCS23ffOVHiin7+94RJfI1LLD5RxbvGQMu bAU1TB5Y6laLZov3oHqQ617D3GIShPcvXV5mcKKS8+fdjHzOyjdRL5R7E3r71Yr5pEWm Pd/GcnEsq6yna5NaWJqcvGiDNNN5O24oSTOzU3hHE9jpt1CsFq5oMiVtr4ZSVR0XTkkL ETkoRdToeOhh6oFdJ0+mOtnVgXMFx1tqiOdUN4DdNl6MhDsSLharsl/bFjU4O8BOEZP3 X-Received: by 10.112.129.40 with SMTP id nt8mr15633164lbb.13.1367680606945; Sat, 04 May 2013 08:16:46 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.152.2.37 with SMTP id 5ls61685lar.92.gmail; Sat, 04 May 2013 08:16:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.126.40 with SMTP id mv8mr1830760lbb.122.1367680605909; Sat, 04 May 2013 08:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bh8si3474042lbc.74.2013.05.04.08.16.45 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 04 May 2013 08:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of tvaneerd@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.172; Original-Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id y6so2340795lbh.31 for ; Sat, 04 May 2013 08:16:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.163.105 with SMTP id yh9mr5755898lbb.63.1367680605747; Sat, 04 May 2013 08:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.112.2.167 with HTTP; Sat, 4 May 2013 08:16:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: tvaneerd@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of tvaneerd@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=tvaneerd@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:4278 Archived-At: --089e01184510ac00d004dbe5f4df Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Ville Voutilainen < ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 4 May 2013 17:32, Tony V E wrote: > >> >> >> Although the question of *whether* optional should define > has come up, >> the conversation has mostly been about *how* it is defined. You have >> proposed "NaNs be damned". If you don't care about NaNs and other >> "non-normal" types, either definition that we have been discussing will >> work fine. They have the same behaviour for normal types. >> >> >> > Indeed. And failing to achieve consensus means we'll get the current > lovely situation, where > we can't even do opt1 != opt2 because people are so concerned about double > NaNs, apparently. > Not for optional, not for optional, not for the gazillion > types for which it would be useful, > because of the holy NaN. Pardon me for the sardonic overtone, but the > current situation has been > designed by people who have completely lost their marbles. > > > Agreed. Some people have lost their marbles. So you are OK if we end up with either (so far discussed) definition of optional > and optional != because - you get the operators - they are equivalent for normal types - the types you care about ? :-) Note the original proposal used both definitions (one for opt > opt, the other for opt > T) and there *was* consensus in LEWG on which definition to pick. So, in a sense, we don't have != because people were so concerned about matching tuple. -- --- 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. --089e01184510ac00d004dbe5f4df Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Ville Voutilainen <vill= e.voutilainen@gmail.com> wrote:



On 4 May 2013 17:3= 2, Tony V E <tvaneerd@gmail.com> wrote:


Although the question of= *whether* optional should define > has come up, the conversation has = =A0mostly been about *how* it is defined. =A0You have proposed "NaNs b= e damned". =A0If you don't care about NaNs and other "non-nor= mal" types, either definition that we have been discussing will work f= ine. =A0They have the same behaviour for normal types.



Indeed. And failing to achieve consensus means we'll get= the current lovely situation, where
we can't even do opt1 !=3D opt2= because people are so concerned about double NaNs, apparently.
Not for optional<int>, not for optional<string>, no= t for the gazillion types for which it would be useful,
because of the h= oly NaN. Pardon me for the sardonic overtone, but the current situation has= been
designed by people who have completely los= t their marbles.

=A0=A0

Agreed. =A0Some people h= ave lost their marbles.

So you are OK if we end up= with either (so far discussed) definition of optional > and optional != =3D because=A0
- you get the operators
- they are equivalent for normal typ= es - the types you care about
?
:-)

Note the original proposal used both definitions (one for opt > op= t, the other for opt > T) and there *was* consensus in LEWG on which def= inition to pick.=A0 So, in a sense, we don't have !=3D because people w= ere so concerned about matching tuple.

=A0



<= div>

--
 
---
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.
 
 
--089e01184510ac00d004dbe5f4df-- .