220 4430 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: Wed, 15 May 2013 17:20:11 +0300 Lines: 82 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=047d7b3a831c9cb54404dcc272d9 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1368627615 16536 80.91.229.3 (15 May 2013 14:20:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 14:20:15 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC5JHI7A7ALRBHFTZ2GAKGQEECPBFAY@isocpp.org Wed May 15 16:20:14 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-oa0-f70.google.com ([209.85.219.70]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UccYv-0001xR-N3 for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 May 2013 16:20:14 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-oa0-f70.google.com with SMTP id k14sf8089163oag.9 for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 07:20:12 -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=DYHbqViX91iQKKcZUC7ZMtA1j4s4euIRjhp+ere5ndY=; b=QJVt2sZN4++la6ZT5pRS0lHsG/mNJmsM3muhOvvL74uFDtqwH5ejuWeUiRAxJDh93c C7GPrL5djN65pZTGoMX3gNjRtbDErII5N4T6ENGsi3duUJVkRJcp/g7bQSiecX5qAn3p EnUftSNc2lOwnLwYUuYBWqYK9fozmL3JGNuhCTrn4W75jloPns+RggdQ+aNeTcoDSHdh d+vIWLTxvpniUkSkl7ToliHKHTvOpmAkn5Yi4REDXPVh0GINfSdeaTikmwJ98mFAfBiD YuXpVucfYOkhGxlPwP0gDF0p7Um2n/nqGqYFG0JUqAzepHvpQbRR950znXp+6ekxoT3P X-Received: by 10.182.138.65 with SMTP id qo1mr11269274obb.11.1368627612646; Wed, 15 May 2013 07:20:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.182.28.132 with SMTP id b4ls129437obh.20.gmail; Wed, 15 May 2013 07:20:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.121.70 with SMTP id li6mr20038849oeb.16.1368627611630; Wed, 15 May 2013 07:20:11 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-oa0-f49.google.com (mail-oa0-f49.google.com [209.85.219.49]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ry2si1848063oeb.26.2013.05.15.07.20.11 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 15 May 2013 07:20:11 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 209.85.219.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.49; Original-Received: by mail-oa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id k14so2201327oag.22 for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 07:20:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.144.99 with SMTP id sl3mr19624049oeb.0.1368627611457; Wed, 15 May 2013 07:20:11 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.76.10.130 with HTTP; Wed, 15 May 2013 07:20:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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 209.85.219.49 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:4430 Archived-At: --047d7b3a831c9cb54404dcc272d9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 15 May 2013 17:04, Fernando Cacciola wrote: > > I'd prefer if as much as possible each issue was a separate paper. >> Optional operator> separate from optional std::less. tuple/pair separate >> from optional. >> > > Agreed. > > My preference would be to separate out std::less specializations (tuple doesn't work as a key for an ordered associative container), but keep the other part, the discussion about relational operators themselves, in a single paper. The pros/cons of what we do with optional's operator> are strongly related to tuple/boost::tuple/containers, so I don't think we should split these into separate tuple and optional papers. -- --- 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. --047d7b3a831c9cb54404dcc272d9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On 15 May 2013 17:04, Fernando Cacciola <fernando.caccio= la@gmail.com> wrote:
=

I'd prefer if as much as po= ssible each issue was a separate paper. =A0Optional operator> separate f= rom optional std::less. =A0tuple/pair separate from optional.

Agreed.

My preferenc= e would be to separate out std::less specializations (tuple<T*> doesn= 't work as a key for
an ordered associative container), but keep the other part, the discussion = about relational operators
themselves, in a single paper. The pros/cons = of what we do with optional's operator> are strongly
related to t= uple/boost::tuple/containers, so I don't think we should split these in= to separate tuple
and optional papers.

--
 
---
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.
 
 
--047d7b3a831c9cb54404dcc272d9-- .