220 7026 <525054DD.5070907@wanadoo.fr> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Vicente J. Botet Escriba" Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Unnamed LValues Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 20:05:17 +0200 Lines: 32 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <525054DD.5070907@wanadoo.fr> References: <0d9b268f-cd3a-4048-a0a3-50cff02b28ce@isocpp.org> <525031B5.80202@wanadoo.fr> <06e15a1f-0f12-408f-b0cd-077669caeb31@isocpp.org> <52503F47.9030308@wanadoo.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; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1380996316 10019 80.91.229.3 (5 Oct 2013 18:05:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2013 18:05:16 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDH67CONY4PBBXVJYGJAKGQEC6ITOEY@isocpp.org Sat Oct 05 20:05:20 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ee0-f71.google.com ([74.125.83.71]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VSWEB-0007dP-TB for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 20:05:19 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-ee0-f71.google.com with SMTP id d17sf6622272eek.10 for ; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 11:05:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-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=iADnRfkhncVEOmVbT+VHNz3RL6GEDpLnvxJ2ip1j8A4=; b=HALE64c+iy5k6p15ZMVyvLkDPxm8PDUUh1AggzIyLwyKCAPjNEZU/NUKV0/DkEnNAX VPWXK5fq5dIkdLCPNxZnVGlVoLL+5i7GcxyN0R0gphu7mDCa2kl4MhiYHbCBkPyBTrpY tdMzLmq8QbGCJUhZO0pABTsABxIWJcwOYCj2ZGCWXkGICnIEsj2GBgxpnYECiiybEScd Xymkae+cdc+Hn93fNUowScKgIXKvvAqucdbDKlrHRfIDVySLkSSsF+nAoytRVKq8kJSe oDjxkSBqfVtkWNiaDaMqysvrDs7HG/y+efIXrwPh+NlgyoqHvgu21iey3DEgT1ycSOaK Mgww== X-Received: by 10.180.73.112 with SMTP id k16mr5742909wiv.5.1380996319100; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 11:05:19 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.180.83.168 with SMTP id r8ls602412wiy.3.canary; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 11:05:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.15.48.197 with SMTP id h45mr32994966eew.0.1380996318076; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 11:05:18 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from smtp.smtpout.orange.fr (smtp09.smtpout.orange.fr. [80.12.242.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id x45si15894053eey.246.1969.12.31.16.00.00; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 11:05:18 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 80.12.242.131 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr) client-ip=80.12.242.131; Original-Received: from android-895509e2ec940b49.home ([92.139.19.223]) by mwinf5d18 with ME id ZW5H1m0064omr7803W5HvH; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 20:05:17 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 80.12.242.131 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr) smtp.mail=vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr 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:7026 Archived-At: Le 05/10/13 19:06, Brent Friedman a =E9crit : > What functionality do we get by adding new block statements versus the=20 > original proposal? Presumably adding new block statements carries much=20 > more language risk and implementation time, so what are we getting for=20 > that extra effort? Unless there's a way to attach with/using to an=20 > object lifetime, it would seem to be even less powerful. My post contained two proposals. let-in and anonymous variables. I find somewhere unfortunately to be forced to add an scope { RAI r(...) return f(); } // ~RAI With a let-in statement we ca have just // LET RAI r(...) IN return f(); RAI r(...) : return f(); Vicente --=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/. .