220 9263 <1576598.9cS7S6zRmC@tjmaciei-mobl4> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thiago Macieira Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: add "implicit" keyword? Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:34:26 -0800 Lines: 49 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <1576598.9cS7S6zRmC@tjmaciei-mobl4> References: 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 1392104063 14098 80.91.229.3 (11 Feb 2014 07:34:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 07:34:23 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCB4TK757YBRBBVF46LQKGQEN26RC2Y@isocpp.org Tue Feb 11 08:34:32 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-we0-f198.google.com ([74.125.82.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WD7rT-00033h-Tr for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:34:31 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-we0-f198.google.com with SMTP id t60sf11739235wes.5 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:34:31 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version: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-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=8pPcxHM4yo7OsK6ycXO66uid147R1jsXgcT38MG8oZ0=; b=WBiP7G8SViLCr5uHmKqVIHYrBivaLzgHjvszO12IravyNF4DC5pv3aF91bHVkf/anG wiyKYcATgc6Ri7RQlUj0HkisxA+Jj77Jdmk4CDHXgWd7o4Rm1v0nQWaC6PTT/00P9DvE EDVB5nfVNo1tYcYP0KumN+S0Dv/CmKfqp7B2FYOFBoyZo72WAKqL3T1H6C8bgujqGP0s 3GCE+X+KxrDGJJY5cmpZ4WIAXtPnpLUIpnWeV0rxkZS6E/wIq6N62cDHwv3xcNSi7pg/ 41t1JJTBoUJofDBuOkSaJBIYnuBKXyUAQESA9lvYChJy6BwG+8Y5nk9wAR283kJwXZg9 UED X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmPT3gMZbY4VOgonUxUGIfBZFDa/V0Img/gvOlYuX6ZOQ7gaB5J+Z8qjqil3dP7nue+Ccp5 X-Received: by 10.112.161.74 with SMTP id xq10mr15590799lbb.10.1392104071405; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:34:31 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.180.79.74 with SMTP id h10ls609719wix.15.canary; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:34:29 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.14.212.71 with SMTP id x47mr928158eeo.98.1392104069804; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:34:29 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from gondolin.macieira.info (gondolin.macieira.info. [78.47.120.188]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id w1si30345925eeo.86.2014.02.10.23.34.29 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:34:29 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of thiago@macieira.org designates 78.47.120.188 as permitted sender) client-ip=78.47.120.188; Original-Received: from tjmaciei-mobl4.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2601:7:1c80:1ec:1ca7:317f:64ea:d18f]) by gondolin.macieira.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 11B3811BA57 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 23:34:29 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.11.10-7-desktop; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: thiago@macieira.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of thiago@macieira.org designates 78.47.120.188 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=thiago@macieira.org 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:9263 Archived-At: Em ter 11 fev 2014, =E0s 14:19:09, David Krauss escreveu: > This is stylistically fine, completely portable, and easy to understand > (given a comment). It doesn't break anything except use of implicit as an > identifier, which the proposal does too. (Users would be well advised to = do > this only after all third-party library #includes.) The proposal was for a context-dependent keyword. It would not break uses o= f=20 "implicit" as an identifier elsewhere. Question: if it's context-dependent, would it be allowed only to the right = of=20 the parameter list? struct X { X(int) implicit; explicit X(long); }; If so, then the explicit keyword should be allowed to be there too. It might not be, since only constructors and cast operators can be implicit= =20 and those cannot have return types, so the presence of the keyword there wo= uld=20 not be ambiguous. It might just be ugly: struct implicit { implicit implicit(int); explicit implicit(long); }; --=20 Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint: E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358 --=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/. .