220 5930 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel_Kr=FCgler?= Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Proposal: Mixins for C++ Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:08:01 +0200 Lines: 40 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <787081f7-fb40-4507-907d-259318ef2000@isocpp.org> <1c80b902-4e65-4f4b-a5d7-8953dbf6df05@isocpp.org> <7035c144-8350-40d4-bf23-03ab7aa7fe53@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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1377691680 5199 80.91.229.3 (28 Aug 2013 12:08:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:08:00 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCT7RVFA4QORBIWQ66IAKGQEIGOES4Q@isocpp.org Wed Aug 28 14:08:03 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-lb0-f200.google.com ([209.85.217.200]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VEeXb-0004Z8-HN for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:08:03 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-lb0-f200.google.com with SMTP id v1sf6431004lbd.7 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 05:08:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=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:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=C2syb//bPy1eyQdaQvPOmqw1uJIpR2v1OTV85BNrQ/Y=; b=Qcr8Woaiu9dp5B+mYaavQje8ep6sqqVVjfYLAPhwWV5HN3zAyJiwO1em9nloIvCfjT aoXPJ5ZnJYyBKT0ILBpUYTRLk6SVSBj+87MMFaGbvZHCS2ZsS/qXcBSYjnrRMF+9ue34 DZPP7IxlDN4jbPT6URQ3lFOFhRBZgnAABQruMeS+eV7mQu+0jHnOX9eCA3f9PgAF6iqE d9BRxHkVZJNLIAl9KgFCSyBTW/k/ZTWqY4ohBKoJLWTF2WFM+nciHjw5xIK8vGQ2TRyE +8XJDiiPWLd9hXICDpNUWNG/lk1D+IJ0HPxSBwvTqvehyo0UbQUwIIZfwWElhNjoBNdW IyHA== X-Received: by 10.152.25.161 with SMTP id d1mr6250219lag.7.1377691682763; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 05:08:02 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.152.30.7 with SMTP id o7ls52433lah.85.gmail; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 05:08:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.122.168 with SMTP id lt8mr1387364wjb.76.1377691681496; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 05:08:01 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-wi0-x235.google.com (mail-wi0-x235.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fu7si9182879wjb.118.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Aug 2013 05:08:01 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of daniel.kruegler@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::235 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::235; Original-Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id ex4so3357176wid.14 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 05:08:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.216.68 with SMTP id oo4mr36757wjc.92.1377691681382; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 05:08:01 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.217.141.207 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 05:08:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7035c144-8350-40d4-bf23-03ab7aa7fe53@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: daniel.kruegler@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of daniel.kruegler@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::235 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=daniel.kruegler@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) d=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:5930 Archived-At: 2013/8/28 R=F3bert D=E1vid : > >> It's a pack of code. > > Soooo.. a macro? I don't think that the proposed mixins are comparable with macros, especially I would expect that they have C++ scope and naming rules. > What's wrong with macros, I could name a lot of them, but this time I just quote Sebastian from his original message: The macro expands to the declaration of the two special members above, and = in some cases includes the access specifier. It has the following disadvantage= s: - Uses the preprocessor. - Repeats the class name. - Changes the access specifier. OR Must be placed in private section. I'm not at all convinced that macros are an equivalent solution and I would rather prefer to stay away from it, where this is possible. - Daniel --=20 ---=20 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 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-proposa= ls/. .