220 5143 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jonathan Wakely Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: constexpr data member Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:30:52 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 113 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> <9a534f6b-4d07-4aa7-a164-4f713a3dd9ac@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1310_9839097.1371684652063" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1371684654 13001 80.91.229.3 (19 Jun 2013 23:30:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:30:54 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCMONUNYS4IRBLH6RCHAKGQEWXGGS3I@isocpp.org Thu Jun 20 01:30:55 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-qa0-f69.google.com ([209.85.216.69]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UpRq2-0000h0-4c for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 01:30:54 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-qa0-f69.google.com with SMTP id hu16sf1617682qab.4 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:30:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.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=+V8+3l1KET5BhTbkk0UExa8B9HlC847lL5KafQHaw9g=; b=aGO8R9XPdFMncbKoVLbx3LXa9MrdRfdS0K5oQP6kIH4DlxvrS0rPmzzmOoszjdnDnt TQbdK8XK3aFpvRNjoR2k3WwUsVxzjcL0R8507xjU82qTFnI2YmmD1peTVqgrmScdITdX ygnXVasFL29uxnCt4+O6Q3TnwB3Sizi93dxd5fDaem2sIZrWzgE+6VVCgy8qJzLV3fJN wkr2OmOyJwK55/CKKua7LpQr2xluUvieMC70G+J8onSYDcyVRx+4bWLsnuEWbooGnkKM 8gvkBJQcBcIQuLo43rl3POOA3YN2FDTYGJcTyXmclsJG9NFO9zklDQw+8SlDK86S4qYt rNKw== X-Received: by 10.236.153.202 with SMTP id f50mr2721797yhk.48.1371684653265; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:30:53 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.49.60.231 with SMTP id k7ls477129qer.22.gmail; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:30:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.35.109 with SMTP id g13mr117702qej.1.1371684652432; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:30:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9a534f6b-4d07-4aa7-a164-4f713a3dd9ac@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: cxx@kayari.org 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:5143 Archived-At: ------=_Part_1310_9839097.1371684652063 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:26:31 AM UTC+1, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > On Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:00:51 AM UTC+1, Zhihao Yuan wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Zhihao Yuan wrote: >> > 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). >> >> Or, there is another option: constexpr data members are >> only accessible within the class scope (including the member >> function definition outside the syntactical area of the class >> definition). Thus, they are per-class, implemented as static >> data member, but NOT accessible with the syntax >> >> Class::name >> >> This should be what I initially want (namely, some constant >> definition within the class scope). I have to use private + >> static + constexpr to achieve that. But it LGTM if the >> Class::name syntax is completely disabled. >> >> > Now it seems like you're just trying to invent a use for your idea, and it > still doesn't strike me as something that improves the language. Just use > a private static member. > > Why should they not be accessible as a qualified name? What purpose does > disabling that serve? It makes the language even more inconsistent: now > you have a name which is private to a class scope but can't be qualified by > the class name ... why? > > Anyway, if you think the idea has merit write a full proposal. It's been fairly universally dismissed here, but if you write a paper explaining its benefits maybe you'll convince the committee. -- --- 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/. ------=_Part_1310_9839097.1371684652063 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:26:31 AM UTC+1, Jonathan Wakely wrote= :


On Thursday, June 20,= 2013 12:00:51 AM UTC+1, Zhihao Yuan wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Zhihao Yuan <lic...@gmail.co= m> wrote:
> Richard gives me a new thought: If we can use the per-object synta= x
> `object.name`= to access it, then it's no longer a static data member
> (but I want they are actually per-class).

Or, there is another option: constexpr data members are
only accessible within the class scope (including the member
function definition outside the syntactical area of the class
definition).  Thus, they are per-class, implemented as static
data member, but NOT accessible with the syntax

  Class::name

This should be what I initially want (namely, some constant
definition within the class scope).  I have to use private +
static + constexpr to achieve that.  But it LGTM if the
Class::name syntax is completely disabled.


Now it seems like you're just tryi= ng to invent a use for your idea, and it still doesn't strike me as somethi= ng that improves the language.  Just use a private static member.

Why should they not be accessible as a qualified name?= What purpose does disabling that serve?  It makes the language even m= ore inconsistent: now you have a name which is private to a class scope but= can't be qualified by the class name ... why?


Anyway, if you think the idea has merit write a fu= ll proposal.  It's been fairly universally dismissed here, but if you = write a paper explaining its benefits maybe you'll convince the committee.<= /div>

--
 
---
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-proposals/<= /a>.
 
 
------=_Part_1310_9839097.1371684652063-- .