220 4427 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Fernando Cacciola 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: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:30:37 -0300 Lines: 158 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e012281b4270de104dcc0eddb X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1368621079 7002 80.91.229.3 (15 May 2013 12:31:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 12:31:19 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCOPV7FAXQPRBFUAZ2GAKGQEXNFBGNQ@isocpp.org Wed May 15 14:31:20 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-fa0-f69.google.com ([209.85.161.69]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UcarW-0000T6-Ua for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 May 2013 14:31:19 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-fa0-f69.google.com with SMTP id a11sf1317924fad.0 for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 05:31:18 -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:x-received :mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject: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=uEiy4ybkl/ck0WckM0PmVGdLvhUjN0uxXFATZ6rmcQI=; b=Va1ZNeobGDhBUHn0crCzQhWK3ni1K+S5fs5CTXujRPAUhq594V2DHEnMlLkv4mvgs+ LuUam9s5Ad94K8sROR9g0Qdmt5i0uqwduf1qg/hoCoAXtp7EKFyAtDkhhTT/wOQRVvr9 m3CG1U6BlXIveVJ7PH1bbV3XM2bg6pmPpNIcXatB5+sSBe1URcLESfwE7S2Izo6iDGTr 8G/WDwWqnXfJvBEGHSDxC8pYsV07caxMcsUYGtiisaBJToMrIlviTjpZyipPxF8F9IWb 1F+qReroV4PwO02ZGWWTBuvDFj39XQ6XVuSBJHyeHAdqs4Jr0ZwA/6vV8km+qnWoGDJE X-Received: by 10.112.198.134 with SMTP id jc6mr997917lbc.8.1368621078440; Wed, 15 May 2013 05:31:18 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.152.22.103 with SMTP id c7ls53708laf.45.gmail; Wed, 15 May 2013 05:31:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.88.40 with SMTP id bd8mr18024864lab.9.1368621077617; Wed, 15 May 2013 05:31:17 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-la0-x22e.google.com (mail-la0-x22e.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h3si1004617lbv.5.2013.05.15.05.31.17 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 15 May 2013 05:31:17 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of fernando.cacciola@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e; Original-Received: by mail-la0-f46.google.com with SMTP id fk20so1665480lab.5 for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 05:31:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.120.40 with SMTP id kz8mr17856687lab.30.1368621077431; Wed, 15 May 2013 05:31:17 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.114.80.164 with HTTP; Wed, 15 May 2013 05:30:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: fernando.cacciola@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of fernando.cacciola@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e as permitted sender) smtp.mail=fernando.cacciola@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:4427 Archived-At: --089e012281b4270de104dcc0eddb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Ville Voutilainen < ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 15 May 2013 15:20, Fernando Cacciola wrote: > >> I did a little bit of further homework on the matter. boost::tuple does >> NOT synthesize the comparison operators, >> >>> but rather calls the operator of the underlying type. The existing >>> practice isn't consistent. ;) >>> >>> This needs at least an overview paper. I'd be willing to entertain the >>> idea to propose making all relational >>> operators, including tuple and containers, to not synthesize. I suppose >>> the fallback plans are synthesize-for-all >>> and deliberately-inconsistent, not necessarily in any preference order. >>> >>> In addition to that, tuples and containers would seemingly need >>> std::less specializations. That's actually somewhat separate. >>> >>> Fernando, Tony, would you be interested in coauthoring? >>> >> >> Now that I am much more convinced that the right approach is to not >> synthesize (consistently across the whole library), I would definitely like >> to coauthor such a paper! >> >> >> > For you, and Tony too, I want to include the "fallback" options in the > paper. According to what Nevin said, > people may already rely on the existing synthesizing, so the outcome is > not easy to predict. At a minimum, > I'll live with whatever the decision will be, at least we have voiced the > concerns with the paper. > > Agreed. > > -- Fernando Cacciola SciSoft Consulting, Founder http://www.scisoft-consulting.com -- --- 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. --089e012281b4270de104dcc0eddb Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On W= ed, May 15, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilaine= n@gmail.com> wrote:



On 15 May 2013 15:= 20, Fernando Cacciola <fernando.cacciola@gmail.com> wrote:
=
I did a little bit of further homework= on the matter. boost::tuple does NOT synthesize the comparison operators,<= br>
=
but rather calls the operator of the underl= ying type. The existing practice isn't consistent. ;)

This needs at least an overview paper. I'd be willing to= entertain the idea to propose making all relational
operators, includin= g tuple and containers, to not synthesize. I suppose the fallback plans are= synthesize-for-all
and deliberately-inconsistent, not necessarily in any preference order.
=
In addition to that, tuples and containers would seemingly = need std::less specializations. That's actually somewhat separate.

Fernando, Tony, would you be intereste= d in coauthoring?

Now that I am much more convinced that the right approach is to not synt= hesize (consistently across the whole library), I would definitely like to = coauthor such a paper!



For = you, and Tony too, I want to include the "fallback" options in th= e paper. According to what Nevin said,
people may already rel= y on the existing synthesizing, so the outcome is not easy to predict. At a= minimum,
I'll live with whatever the decision will be, at least we ha= ve voiced the concerns with the paper.

Agreed.



--
Fernando= Cacciola
SciSoft Consulting, Founder
http://www.scisoft-consulting.com

--
 
---
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.
 
 
--089e012281b4270de104dcc0eddb-- .