220 4841 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nicol Bolas Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Proposal: std::sequence Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:32:44 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 94 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_3233_4213805.1370298764450" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1370298768 16777 80.91.229.3 (3 Jun 2013 22:32:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 22:32:48 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCEKFTV6ZUMBBDVTWSGQKGQE43M27VI@isocpp.org Tue Jun 04 00:32:49 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ob0-f198.google.com ([209.85.214.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UjdJ2-0002CE-EI for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 00:32:48 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f198.google.com with SMTP id up14sf27557957obb.5 for ; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 15:32:47 -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=pJIFO9RKYCHsZ2zhMdEazP8MqU7KCFghzsgnmRQZ/QE=; b=gl4LlX7YHHR1v0OiZDVkHi+TBN4w5ayc0gG++ledd513Iy0N6OsKFXz3INmWAts3G2 Y8tL2cPrxDNNd3DkS9MWQJvz8SsKz9Q0bOgw4zioSy2pI62emubn9778/N055CUzZLvh Qga0xGRigt5KC/D56UbY7gbm4neZeMFzteEhDAsCcbCZW3tQfY0g3orRtgxv+ZLvCXzM MVxTxSyYz/80qt1+mhTVXg82LUNc8heh83idFvSRUFIoY7DRw7SFosS67txh70lPoHnw aQmJFChLK9Yvs+7shds7o2HvNDf/M1tQxNF93Zsd7diN1A/SsufYw/P1K0RhyG0r5X91 fsNA== X-Received: by 10.42.161.71 with SMTP id s7mr18732262icx.18.1370298767285; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 15:32:47 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.50.117.36 with SMTP id kb4ls2370636igb.11.gmail; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 15:32:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.39.84 with SMTP id n20mr26185igk.13.1370298765770; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 15:32:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: jmckesson@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:4841 Archived-At: ------=_Part_3233_4213805.1370298764450 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Monday, June 3, 2013 1:26:12 PM UTC-7, Nevin ":-)" Liber wrote: > > On 3 June 2013 15:24, Alex B > wrote: > >> >> 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 about this code: > > map> m; > > m[1] = get_array(); > > Breaking assignment pretty much breaks expectations. I agree with your general sentiment, just not the example code you give. The idea of storing a short-term array_ref/etc in a long-term object like a `map` is... disconcerting. -- --- 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_3233_4213805.1370298764450 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Monday, June 3, 2013 1:26:12 PM UTC-7, Nevin ":-)" Liber wrote:On 3 June 2013 15:24, Alex B <deva...@gmail.com> wrote:

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 rej= ected and thrown to abyss) proposal, there is no mutable version of the cla= ss provided. That makes it at least one reason to (maybe) reconsider it.

Personally, I am against allowing assignment.


What about this code:

map<int, array_ref<= ;int>> m;

m[1] =3D get_array();

Breaking assignment pretty much breaks expectations.

I= agree with your general sentiment, just not the example code you give. The= idea of storing a short-term array_ref/etc in a long-term object like a `m= ap` is... disconcerting.

--
 
---
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_3233_4213805.1370298764450-- .