220 5315 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Martinho Fernandes Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Overloaded Declarators Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 19:16:52 +0200 Lines: 35 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <82b89c5e-ce4e-49c0-82b2-d6032631e3e3@isocpp.org> <6ed86280-bff9-4dc5-bef3-28be8981770b@isocpp.org> <3ab6aadf-3c8b-4054-87bb-9db8a786f847@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 1373131016 30798 80.91.229.3 (6 Jul 2013 17:16:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 17:16:56 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDXL3FEUYQARBBFC4GHAKGQEFAE4X2A@isocpp.org Sat Jul 06 19:16:56 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-gg0-f199.google.com ([209.85.161.199]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UvW6R-0001Ly-Sb for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 19:16:56 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-gg0-f199.google.com with SMTP id o1sf3554546ggn.10 for ; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 10:16:54 -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=NbA/oDg1/x2YwDgdXrpmFjrQ9GGfjIiHNKZV0SZcHR4=; b=ZoIrGtVRReANWerES93/wnlhQtQOqOdCho/j583JTsVU8ytTJr2jp72KKipKBvC3tZ N/Pwmwc3aUVbFKQACVdN/eETzJB9ChE2Y6lWIsuByHUekJ/tBF6BQza3oX0dmvsUwjCT gcYuT97s1k/Hnv2FTzlpcYjUE1f18RoXVePRmKJGGb64h+8XerEQkl9uhwPpK4H6QUyq Hdyho7Dsjdkc8O7jn+Z0kZyVjvi/kN7dZAyhtg/RQvzmL1DLILWJGPXV7QKeQQf6eiom HYghH4QgUjDbsq1AHZH7fqgo+2PyS/dYi12W5yQmlIn3b37yzBZAlMB8/gTxwG3ZUDAg Fo9g== X-Received: by 10.236.124.78 with SMTP id w54mr7659727yhh.44.1373131014880; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 10:16:54 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.49.107.129 with SMTP id hc1ls1371395qeb.78.gmail; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 10:16:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.224.63.7 with SMTP id z7mr11835959qah.51.1373131012727; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 10:16:52 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-qe0-x22d.google.com (mail-qe0-x22d.google.com [2607:f8b0:400d:c02::22d]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v5si993051qag.186.2013.07.06.10.16.52 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 06 Jul 2013 10:16:52 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of martinho.fernandes@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c02::22d as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c02::22d; Original-Received: by mail-qe0-f45.google.com with SMTP id w7so1673562qeb.4 for ; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 10:16:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.224.151.196 with SMTP id d4mr11385180qaw.30.1373131012634; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 10:16:52 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.49.94.238 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 10:16:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3ab6aadf-3c8b-4054-87bb-9db8a786f847@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: martinho.fernandes@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of martinho.fernandes@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c02::22d as permitted sender) smtp.mail=martinho.fernandes@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:5315 Archived-At: On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 9:23 AM, wrote: > > Have you understood that the declarator meaning is only overloaded for the > user-defined set of types nominated by the declarator overload declaration > (for example just for one class, or one hierarchy of classes)? The > suggestion is not to overload the meaning of the declarator in general. Yes, I have understood that. It changes nothing. You need to realise that in C++ there is already existing code that uses *classes that haven't written yet*. That code was written under the assumption that T* is a pointer and not some other thing that isn't quite compatible with pointers. That code will break. The overloadable unary operator& has been there since the beginning. Existing code that uses &x when it should be using boost::addressof(x) or any other variant of that *was broken already* before std::addressof was introduced (exercise for the reader: figure out why std::addressof was introduced). Under the light of that, and unless you want to argue that all generic code that used T*, T(U...), T[N], T&, or T&& anywhere to this day is broken, this change is a terrible idea that will break a lot existing code. -- --- 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/. .