220 8103 <6bc64055-23b0-464f-b617-ef30d0f756b4@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: mitchnull@gmail.com Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Proposal: Private extension methods Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 01:23:00 -0800 (PST) Lines: 80 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <6bc64055-23b0-464f-b617-ef30d0f756b4@isocpp.org> References: <05028bfb-6f6f-4ee8-9a6e-7e6eaa3a877a@isocpp.org> <64d699c7-62e0-48ce-9c58-c9b7a6038832@isocpp.org> <1902602.AxIk4I1HBX@tjmaciei-mobl2> <52A79CD3.50802@wanadoo.fr> <52A7B319.1090308@gmail.com> <566b4320-4f64-4d14-ac61-6eb94c536967@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1160_22385915.1386753780961" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1386753781 7558 80.91.229.3 (11 Dec 2013 09:23:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:23:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: fmatthew5876@gmail.com To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC36XNFZ4YKBB5W5UCKQKGQE2MEE5RA@isocpp.org Wed Dec 11 10:23:03 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-qa0-f70.google.com ([209.85.216.70]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Vqg0V-000463-Fv for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:23:03 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-qa0-f70.google.com with SMTP id j5sf885448qaq.5 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 01:23:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=2KJyVry8qKrziM/jbRHiH1P5vFsOaeLnVIOlQ+f0EWA=; b=Udh5RSqho32eoUsEEMmVkoX4pWptqVKDZCIdArc4/xkgwskiDrNSpAFWErjD5QJv3z 5FrVRKU3Kh/k2syJxUNqct1o9DwLbODdShN5kCy51wOSDhfBZSx85jaCBpj7MQE5urEC he9yyr5lZyd64gIfc2qLUY/q9RnjvNIi21Pbps6pf5wWp3riRjoDb8w0OaGlbM26USaf 2xQ0126lb0YR2gcLW3Gy2X7xlzj1hKAKIiA3L9+M14tBlt0C3dHfOLj3KW3lkBDE3vXM 3BASzcRxOmpP6qhcDjXZSceyW4josVhcAGCBHMuOuNKMhsszHSya2Me0Cns1fWvl6R/Z J9xA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=2KJyVry8qKrziM/jbRHiH1P5vFsOaeLnVIOlQ+f0EWA=; b=KgGRsEnYaSpKeIlbm6Va0Na9OYBAKJIVLdNkxhviBBtbNP+g6IERUNNCipzSxhf5Sl BN8haL9Z38b2diLF90iqduCgHpKpt7o7VzjVfsKzZJWrkn7LJ3LkzAqYizMKHH80meg3 O+PxqP7QPBlu3dUBVouSC2qlE6G7y3xko+z7sQH79UnJJvNqMuYx8GjxnkQ1fSrdvNef 7GPGYdiWaZUuWkqvoi0yAf9FNYE2qJJ2lCpBhHV4C072u5Xau5eeTfL8a7dZbgfJzyGB 6QHGU+S8JQcuWEMGyLWTfq4a2mm22dOdlA1lre9t3TOiQ0CdAX6kVk/KTgTDL+XpsOfQ zjTA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlQfcGPCWcpfzWEYsB4+/olhWZmjEcHiPy2waRonD/MblTpaC8t0ybfHHXcy0UW0hYrUp2V X-Received: by 10.236.220.39 with SMTP id n37mr108410yhp.15.1386753782670; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 01:23:02 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.182.138.9 with SMTP id qm9ls14986obb.14.gmail; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 01:23:01 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.182.138.66 with SMTP id qo2mr5165obb.8.1386753781893; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 01:23:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <566b4320-4f64-4d14-ac61-6eb94c536967@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: mitchnull@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:8103 Archived-At: ------=_Part_1160_22385915.1386753780961 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 3:55:11 AM UTC+1, fmatth...@gmail.com wrote: [SNIP] > Actually using a keyword nicely solves the static dilemna: > > private Foo::f1() //private extension method > private static Foo::f2() //static private method > static private Foo::f3() //private extension method with internal linkage > static private static Foo::f4() //static private extension method with > internal linkage > > Going to think about it more, maybe using the private keyword makes sense. > I think using the private keyword like this is good, but I would prefer to make all PEMs internal linkage by default and use extern or some other keyword in the few cases where you want them to be reachable from other TUs and still not declare them in the class. Also, making "private static" and "static private" different things is just too confusing / ugly in my opinion (but that's minor compared to my strong preference towards making PEMs internal linkage by default, thus avoiding this use of the static keyword here). -- --- 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_1160_22385915.1386753780961 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 3:55:11 AM UTC+1, = fmatth...@gmail.com wrote:

[SNIP]
 
Actua= lly using a keyword nicely solves the static dilemna:
=

private Foo::f1() //private extension method
= private static Foo::f2() //static private method
static private F= oo::f3() //private extension method with internal linkage
static = private static Foo::f4() //static private extension method with internal li= nkage

Going to think about it more, maybe using th= e private keyword makes sense.

I think using the private keyword like this is good, but I would pref= er to make all PEMs internal linkage by default and use extern or some othe= r keyword in the few cases where you want them to be reachable from other T= Us and still not declare them in the class.
Also, making  "p= rivate static" and "static private" different things is just too confusing = / ugly in my opinion (but that's minor compared to my strong preference tow= ards making PEMs internal linkage by default, thus avoiding this use of the= static keyword here).


--
 
---
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_1160_22385915.1386753780961-- .