220 4433 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 17:50:17 +0300 Lines: 100 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=089e0129526a41a0d604dcc2de53 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1368629429 5052 80.91.229.3 (15 May 2013 14:50:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 14:50:29 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC5JHI7A7ALRBKWBZ2GAKGQES52Y74A@isocpp.org Wed May 15 16:50:30 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ob0-f199.google.com ([209.85.214.199]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ucd23-0000Mj-LX for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 May 2013 16:50:19 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f199.google.com with SMTP id v19sf6959959obq.2 for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 07:50:18 -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: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=yqd3b9VwPhhMPn4xU2QhtywgQeaLYmhuLApKl1/HMfc=; b=Q1AlRqqpFCct9QMLTKCsB43zXRp1MAK8toQIgtnK9SwYKsE+EC0fLUEyUh9AG3zTIq r16kRtUvqsUZzuq5xVbOqnXObmJxX4n/Eonk79WmRWMVsuLIrSFtOpNzp3nBVvZvf6GZ r15MqXhkFf3qZfuO9P6iMSsCmpTYa6YDqFT/BZBhKqZIv0ejPXTKDCggeIg/LODpgqoR BPvEJGU5zMbKrR6f5PsTo3g61hp2xwxx+5XBWrfJR29LVdbpLKejJmxMDUAJuv1kQ7yZ 0PY6S5rjxLP3QHMpZdXOLG+5vAnfWrqMfjH7OJKijH0GA37Cqer9RopDKPtILcTAyGyX X-Received: by 10.182.52.137 with SMTP id t9mr11287175obo.14.1368629418522; Wed, 15 May 2013 07:50:18 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.182.98.194 with SMTP id ek2ls131893obb.25.gmail; Wed, 15 May 2013 07:50:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.131.209 with SMTP id oo17mr19352540oeb.14.1368629417606; Wed, 15 May 2013 07:50:17 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-ob0-x22e.google.com (mail-ob0-x22e.google.com [2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id yx1si1904740obb.135.2013.05.15.07.50.17 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 15 May 2013 07:50:17 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22e as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22e; Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id un3so2078100obb.5 for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 07:50:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.102.234 with SMTP id fr10mr3184228obb.85.1368629417429; Wed, 15 May 2013 07:50:17 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.76.10.130 with HTTP; Wed, 15 May 2013 07:50:17 -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 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22e 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:4433 Archived-At: --089e0129526a41a0d604dcc2de53 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 15 May 2013 17:42, Fernando Cacciola wrote: > > I think it's clearest if, as mentioned, the std::less paper is completely >> separate, then we have a collective >> analysis paper, and separate wording papers for the options. The last bit >> is actually quite good to >> have, so that people don't accidentally scroll to the wrong wording. We >> had that issue with >> optional wording being present in the optional paper. >> >> Good enough compromise? >> > > OK, as long as the collective paper does provide separate proposals, that > works for me. > > I expect it to outline three(*) optional (oh my, this no-pun-intended stuff is HARD :D) ways to go forward, and I don't expect it to recommend any of them as unanimously preferred. I expect the paper to say that even the authors don't have a strong consensus. ;) (*) The alternatives are 1) be inconsistent, do not synthesize for optional, do not change other wrappers 2) synthesize, consistently 3) do not synthesize, consistently -- --- 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. --089e0129526a41a0d604dcc2de53 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On 15 May 2013 17:42, Fernando Cacciola <fernando.caccio= la@gmail.com> wrote:

I think it's clearest if, a= s mentioned, the std::less paper is completely separate, then we have a col= lective
analysis paper, and separate wo= rding papers for the options. The last bit is actually quite good to
have, so that people don't accidentally scroll to the wrong wording. We= had that issue with
optional<T&= > wording being present in the optional paper.

Good enough compromise?

OK, as long as the collective paper does provide separate proposal= s, that works for me.


I expect it to outline three(*) optional (oh my, this no-pun= -intended stuff is HARD :D) ways to go
forward, and I don't expect i= t to recommend any of them as unanimously preferred. I expect
the paper = to say that even the authors don't have a strong consensus. ;)

(*) The alternatives are1) be inconsistent, do not synthesize for optional, do not change other w= rappers
2) synthesize, consistently
3) do not synthesize, consistently

--
 
---
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.
 
 
--089e0129526a41a0d604dcc2de53-- .