220 10711 <63b4a6ef-9fa8-411d-8c6f-a65df2c88cac@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: snk_kid Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Unpacking syntax for tuples using auto Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 14:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 80 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <63b4a6ef-9fa8-411d-8c6f-a65df2c88cac@isocpp.org> References: Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_761_21798955.1400534208742" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1400534217 10781 80.91.229.3 (19 May 2014 21:16:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 21:16:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: leszek.swirski@gmail.com To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCG6DCXN7IPRBQPJ5GNQKGQEOEUPQVQ@isocpp.org Mon May 19 23:16:52 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-yh0-f72.google.com ([209.85.213.72]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WmUvT-0005Kq-7a for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 May 2014 23:16:51 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-yh0-f72.google.com with SMTP id f73sf35217366yha.11 for ; Mon, 19 May 2014 14:16:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.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=M8EGF7WQTCsJZrzFT8hqFQ1usXdTe/duKqPaxZK21aY=; b=jf63RNuTT0fa6AOpUloGtX9Kxklb94XMmvb10dbWYYjGM0r3kTy+F+dORI/tb+sVlA XUcWWZ19pNceGyWM8HG2elF1LBkZ7rNdoAmKl0h8PFcqUKTS0r/Py6P5CC4q6KoaeagG k/c8jmSalZba6PvUUfMUIFCDPGyMcoOoXzcTLN4ZcSfpd4nM51PFQfhH6CWOeYa3ROO/ ZKlOGlFX7mvINxkHlXSkDc7T7DE3CwbefBgDnjqsyK+mVf43KFRaoisursP5VNOcgXU+ 0oQRu6mg80IoXQz4idaVIq4YWjmbwFLqqY7w6cUCThKhRnylwc9kOE8/VIeWVGSRXdm6 RsxQ== 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=M8EGF7WQTCsJZrzFT8hqFQ1usXdTe/duKqPaxZK21aY=; b=beBv0Y/xf2jllrfxwhroIX2KGdbWc+y/CqSRqCWbaC7RiJ7oFmkRjpSreSbezP9BPX Gn56QxbegCCTGD7dORsnF6UuB8dlStdiaMkctUO36kCLr83WNMNpz/MEwfIkDKVa7ZMb /aPKxt/p+LR6wF7BXbsVZjse+NXii1OE64GE9eh8lMvYMkQoBQu3O451kc1v2wrG8Wja uSAIKIaZmAOYOfx762jlYUfGGRR35ETa5Oi1L/ltP+0ifueNsIgbVWbksdFH40q5yDhx g3RBl0LBD+QAYHzWN4OCOjJkWGoa1tJeIJdQpouFyBs9kEq/D0aN1XLRRnh3sVWanilY i+vg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk/b6W0sCyEEq9d2BK4kriINgXwwmhTDPzTllHhCwm5iAmjJUZZgowIs/AG7wTeXcCQGfDd X-Received: by 10.236.136.231 with SMTP id w67mr14666582yhi.37.1400534210165; Mon, 19 May 2014 14:16:50 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.84.239 with SMTP id l102ls1947262qgd.81.gmail; Mon, 19 May 2014 14:16:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.104.52 with SMTP id z49mr92213qge.12.1400534209606; Mon, 19 May 2014 14:16:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: korcan.hussein@googlemail.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:10711 Archived-At: ------=_Part_761_21798955.1400534208742 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > What do people think? > I think you've just reinevented pattern matching! which is prevalent in virtually all statically typed functional programming languages. What you're describing in particular is just one type of pattern match, a deconstructing tuple pattern. There are various other kinds of patterns that I recommend checking it out. I would love to see general pattern matching support added to C++ in the future, it's one of the most sorely, *most painfully *missed feature when I'm coding in C/C++. Trust me when you've been programming in a language with pattern matching support for a while then go to another without it, it's painful. It would make the other thread about "named tuples" completely redundant, and to me is a hacky solution to begin with. To me pattern matching is the proper general solution to this and other related problems. There is a proposal already to bring a tiny subset of pattern matching abilities to C++, specifically a type-case patterns but I really think we should just go the whole way for C++17, that would really evolve the language. -- --- 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_761_21798955.1400534208742 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What do people think?=

I think you've just reinevented pa= ttern matching! which is prevalent in virtually all statically typed functi= onal programming languages. What you're describing in particular is just on= e type of pattern match, a deconstructing tuple pattern. There are various = other kinds of patterns that I recommend checking it out.

I would lo= ve to see general pattern matching support added to C++ in the future, it's= one of the most sorely, most painfully missed feature when I'm codi= ng in C/C++. Trust me when you've been programming in a language with patte= rn matching support for a while then go to another without it, it's painful= ..

It would make the other thread about "named tuples" completely red= undant, and to me is a hacky solution to begin with. To me pattern matching= is the proper general solution to this and other related problems.

= There is a proposal already to bring a tiny subset of pattern matching abil= ities to C++, specifically a type-case patterns but I really think we shoul= d just go the whole way for C++17, that would really evolve the language.

--

---
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-proposa= ls+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_761_21798955.1400534208742-- .