220 5140 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Zhihao Yuan Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: constexpr data member Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:31:10 -0400 Lines: 36 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <300a19dd-8a82-4788-9802-45170480b30a@isocpp.org> <63d90b03-5605-476d-b40b-7ebcee0d3354@isocpp.org> <0df105c5-7019-4674-83ac-1b071964210b@isocpp.org> <9a4c139d-b08f-4dab-b5a3-9ff9d3139061@isocpp.org> <1ef2b6fd-21f7-4492-a778-03952dd1720d@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1371681071 11057 80.91.229.3 (19 Jun 2013 22:31:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:31:11 +0000 (UTC) To: "std-proposals@isocpp.org" Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCUILMGRQMARBL7CRCHAKGQEVVB3MKA@isocpp.org Thu Jun 20 00:31:14 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-lb0-f198.google.com ([209.85.217.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UpQuG-0005Vl-4W for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:31:12 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-lb0-f198.google.com with SMTP id 13sf5527116lba.1 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:31:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-beenthere:mime-version: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=HPrHPs28Sjo3cmTObExtBVYGd3ul+ecS6QltgLBt+iQ=; b=C2bnFy5EHEh7jgtctZgasSIhI26w1L9P/+vudeh98PW3lAVAAvfjX2yQ1ntsgNan4Z cSygpOHQywxK8EM0Bf8275/9Ex7zR4tuEGjzgNNeNuu33jvLRNUf7cJy3wFD68QSYbR1 J49EvunWfNAsztzDRCwXAJYRGQ6FoxfSbLySrnst4UfUwYgTOxFrAML6RM0Q00r9tEmn Gk4q4EaGjGSUr+t2JcybzKTCdSRMCpuTKaE4qlq6xxNWWHY5LkqxeUCCg9K2obrY818d qDziLmDA0E9tnj3Og4bJCT1PgtbWqrstfnjWNYPQeHPaF2iO0FRI9aKenuZARryi8h7G /B+Q== X-Received: by 10.112.53.37 with SMTP id y5mr2158995lbo.0.1371681071473; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:31:11 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.152.88.114 with SMTP id bf18ls33376lab.47.gmail; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:31:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.143.72 with SMTP id sc8mr4213440lbb.79.1371681070802; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:31:10 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-la0-x22d.google.com (mail-la0-x22d.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c03::22d]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ex4si10835962lbc.139.2013.06.19.15.31.10 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:31:10 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lichray@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::22d as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::22d; Original-Received: by mail-la0-f45.google.com with SMTP id fr10so5097559lab.18 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:31:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.12.137 with SMTP id y9mr4199009lbb.91.1371681070653; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:31:10 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.112.79.161 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:31:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1ef2b6fd-21f7-4492-a778-03952dd1720d@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: lichray@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lichray@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::22d as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lichray@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:5140 Archived-At: On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Nicol Bolas wrote: > You still haven't explained why omitting important keywords and complicating > the relationship between keywords is a good thing. Except that it saves 7 > keystrokes. How is that worth the confusion? Because `static` causes the confusion -- it's not needed else where constexpr being used to define a variable. > You want it to work like a static data member. You what to access it like a > static data member. You want it to be treated like a static data member. > > Therefore, it should be declared like a static data member too. Richard gives me a new thought: If we can use the per-object syntax `object.name` to access it, then it's no longer a static data member (but I want they are actually per-class). Anyway, not matter whether the thought is valid or not, please, call it 'constexpr' data member. Look at the title of this thread. -- Zhihao Yuan, ID lichray The best way to predict the future is to invent it. ___________________________________________________ 4BSD -- http://4bsd.biz/ -- --- 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/. .