220 4833 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alex B Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Proposal: std::sequence Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 103 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <4551abbc-43aa-4520-a91a-f8eb25a90588@isocpp.org> <2c8e6079-9c87-425a-93e2-39251df57cd8@isocpp.org> <9f1cace3-0503-4a3c-a8ce-d7546564b3ef@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_966_20379093.1370291052467" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1370291054 2684 80.91.229.3 (3 Jun 2013 20:24:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 20:24:14 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC7JZJ43WYOBB3PWWOGQKGQEE42KG5Y@isocpp.org Mon Jun 03 22:24:15 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-gg0-f198.google.com ([209.85.161.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UjbId-0007xy-1a for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 22:24:15 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-gg0-f198.google.com with SMTP id p1sf5076107ggn.9 for ; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:24:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-beenthere:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=pWNN5w4+iwv9QD42Thg/53WPXBw3SmeGSKoovCwtJWE=; b=X2PRda7psDx0RHoyfnEqQNe7N7wDXRHxqLvLsUSrRta/Ekl+RYEF+QV6aqla9FAgPx z74VB/vHjOXAUYZyNrnF9tGDnAOwW7VuyIa5PZdjPoDpHawKOpFr97/oBmU5904PWGHZ Beh1xvWLaFV8Qx3h6F8bLonzw+oWEdYhQXXo77SecvPjrurIQsa7uTo4/sMLnZGOvjfx 5AtGdMglBM0xDzPifHZK6IrcHgFtVbDN9WX3dzhu4a8jREJQC1C4pfEaWs4lH1jLphv8 lujmvpnqNYgRt4LRo5xL0jRBSiHkzNQvc3QG3ibteA3JZfPWCs2+s+qK/+7sTxxn2gsb 5VPw== X-Received: by 10.236.80.106 with SMTP id j70mr13771390yhe.11.1370291054177; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:24:14 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.49.99.72 with SMTP id eo8ls277257qeb.89.gmail; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:24:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.27.138 with SMTP id t10mr543103qeg.31.1370291053037; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:24:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: devalexb@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:4833 Archived-At: ------=_Part_966_20379093.1370291052467 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > And LLVM and Google have gotten by with types that are equally lightweight > and shortlived, yet *theirs* are assignable and adjustable in size. Why > should we use yours instead of theirs (ie: array_ref)? > Yet, in the (unfortunately rejected and thrown to abyss) proposal, there is no mutable version of the class provided. That makes it at least one reason to (maybe) reconsider it. Personally, I am against allowing assignment. What do you think most users would expect from the following code?: void foo(mutable_array_ref a, array_ref b) { a = b; ... } Was the intent of the user to copy-assign the elements from b to a? That is not what will happen. Yet, most users will expect to use an array_ref just the same way they would use a container/range. And not only users: template code as well. So unless one can provide actual use cases for assignment operator, I don't think it would be a good idea to provide one since it could be misleading. -- --- 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. ------=_Part_966_20379093.1370291052467 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
And LLVM and Google h= ave gotten by with types that are equally lightweight and shortlived, yet <= i>theirs are assignable and adjustable in size. Why should we use yours= instead of theirs (ie: array_ref)?

Yet, in the (unfortunately rejected and thrown to abyss) proposal, there= is no mutable version of the class provided. That makes it at least one re= ason to (maybe) reconsider it.

Personally, I am ag= ainst allowing assignment. What do you think most users would expect from t= he following code?:

void foo(mutable_array_ref<int> a, array_ref<int> b)
{
   a =3D b;
&n= bsp;  ...
}

Was the intent of the user to copy-assig= n the elements from b to a? That is not what will happen. Yet, most users w= ill expect to use an array_ref just the same way they would use a container= /range. And not only users: template code as well.

So unless one can provide actual use cases for assignment operator, I don'= t think it would be a good idea to provide one since it could be misleading= ..

--
 
---
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.
 
 
------=_Part_966_20379093.1370291052467-- .