220 6007 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Martinho Fernandes Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Properties Syntax Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 13:34:28 +0200 Lines: 48 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <5e23a0e9-2bd9-4f62-aa83-47bea8144eae@isocpp.org> <521DAAF4.3050100@beamways.com> <521DE3EC.4040404@beamways.com> <521E8AB0.6070906@numericable.fr> 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 1377862468 27933 80.91.229.3 (30 Aug 2013 11:34:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:34:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ville Voutilainen To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDXL3FEUYQARBREGQKIQKGQEAR375GY@isocpp.org Fri Aug 30 13:34:31 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-yh0-f70.google.com ([209.85.213.70]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VFMyD-0000Gr-Sn for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 13:34:30 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-yh0-f70.google.com with SMTP id z20sf1934052yhz.5 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:34:29 -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 :cc: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=BAJM/TBmOiSb9DX/DW3RJk8im3Z1ke6Qfs0GFLl9rhs=; b=Y6zYsaRuM8eUkSycgwlMq14NpGGV7ar7V+Gyez296juyCX90xVwujIKZyDe2Y1+KAQ lvtgf/va1HzJupnkBNdYW2q1LnpPEwY7llhUPa1bnH8l0apBz7iNKIKQEkH9CudHNLyT co77Yj/cdE54t6r3NW925L37tFocfjnnGO52Q2AITZBV2UvPysivM3fDjFTZdaRSS0sH +b6ZrHkqxK3oyibOq+qtJZLgWJebw+EHPb7C3j7Aio5NsmfftiXZo/r+E4vZ3wX4w4/I QXzcC4XN0BLb19BwrCU2WbZiobWPrUFdmKPbUp1fPZc1iX1J3QlKDv0OUHRtfjrnBg3a Rbug== X-Received: by 10.236.116.135 with SMTP id g7mr2781038yhh.53.1377862468988; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:34:28 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.49.12.231 with SMTP id b7ls1320290qec.68.gmail; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:34:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.224.130.195 with SMTP id u3mr11151275qas.80.1377862468541; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:34:28 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-qe0-x22f.google.com (mail-qe0-x22f.google.com [2607:f8b0:400d:c02::22f]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g8si3820745qam.41.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:34:28 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of martinho.fernandes@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c02::22f as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c02::22f; Original-Received: by mail-qe0-f47.google.com with SMTP id b4so869065qen.6 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:34:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.229.48.137 with SMTP id r9mr10314732qcf.6.1377862468315; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:34:28 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.49.120.105 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:34:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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::22f as permitted sender) smtp.mail=martinho.fernandes@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:6007 Archived-At: On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Klaim - Jo=EBl Lamotte = wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Nick wrot= e: >> >> could you clarify what you mean by non-auto property? > > > I believe Loic means that if I have a initial version of some code that l= ook > like this: > > struct K > { > int count; > }; > > int f( K& k ) > { > return k.count; > } > > Then (years) later I upgrade it with some checks using some property synt= ax, > but want to keep the retrocompatibility: In my opinion this is quite stupid. Putting in some checks is a breaking change and you want all code affected to continue compiling silently? Or, in other words, what kind of checks can you put in that are not a breaking change from what is effectively just a normal data member? Mit freundlichen Gr=FC=DFen, Martinho --=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/. .