220 10965 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andrew Tomazos Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Protect Lambda functions against reflection Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 19:26:22 +0200 Lines: 103 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <108c47a2-d952-4f84-a347-923b2ab742ad@isocpp.org> <7ef3d3da-0c1d-443c-88d2-656b91937170@isocpp.org> <68f98b78-8bd4-48e0-9e1d-47cfc0492764@isocpp.org> <2960c77b-fd52-4052-b50c-c8e2aa829cf7@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01182e484af45704fa8d3ab6 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1401384390 9028 80.91.229.3 (29 May 2014 17:26:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 17:26:30 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBD5KHQXXWYPRBPW3TWOAKGQEM6BOLNI@isocpp.org Thu May 29 19:26:24 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ob0-f198.google.com ([209.85.214.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Wq45v-0007nX-PG for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Thu, 29 May 2014 19:26:24 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f198.google.com with SMTP id va2sf2824639obc.5 for ; Thu, 29 May 2014 10:26:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from: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; bh=NS8Ajz4VWiUx0RvV5fXNZ/LIMKNXj/edEScC+fyZt/8=; b=Z31ktEE2zpTy3cbIFLYo6PVz3ns9B4k5hjaW9H9akrapjLQhCZaC9+TRcb7N+FC8ly S6reCDvl4Y8vDo28uAgaVIyNj8H2HpiUZTHstbT3FEfYfOhKRVZ4zP5I3GLDUaFAzmXg rVPbQZkLm2p8BiFVpiTmbFDpzUu6AG2lgWSwJDjOOrCfSGbw0xYb0LE9BpYz+SO2SqUc hELI5RL/41/dEMkmUepioVBOCWFWy8ydmCFPS06O/K3l9VKKppLp0d+gQuHN+J8fXpEL N10p7wL59ujoKjKRxFdjXLpYwQUAkTXmZzWVGvA4xhdh5I3hzN+agEwCFYyWn80soi1J vPZw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnG8PNfQvCTSBbscPh16QW4fxxTaGzp8sva7NgK3gXYURuX8N+UH9NgFjDyo5IbIetxMUiO X-Received: by 10.43.31.81 with SMTP id sf17mr3326402icb.4.1401384382897; Thu, 29 May 2014 10:26:22 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.50.12.37 with SMTP id v5ls883488igb.38.gmail; Thu, 29 May 2014 10:26:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.43.11.198 with SMTP id pf6mr9364602icb.10.1401384382315; Thu, 29 May 2014 10:26:22 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-ig0-x235.google.com (mail-ig0-x235.google.com [2607:f8b0:4001:c05::235]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y20si2993670ich.81.2014.05.29.10.26.22 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 29 May 2014 10:26:22 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of andrewtomazos@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c05::235 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c05::235; Original-Received: by mail-ig0-f181.google.com with SMTP id h3so647091igd.2 for ; Thu, 29 May 2014 10:26:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.79.194 with SMTP id l2mr40481261igx.23.1401384382163; Thu, 29 May 2014 10:26:22 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.64.225.239 with HTTP; Thu, 29 May 2014 10:26:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2960c77b-fd52-4052-b50c-c8e2aa829cf7@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: andrewtomazos@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of andrewtomazos@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c05::235 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=andrewtomazos@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=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:10965 Archived-At: --089e01182e484af45704fa8d3ab6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 N4027 On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Thibaut Lutz wrote: > @Diggory: I would not call the code portable if the number of members in > the enumeration depends entirely on the compiler. Besides, since the names > are obfuscated, the members would have to be accessed by index, in which > case one could not distinguish between by-copy and by-ref members. I am not > saying we definitely should or should not allow reflection on closure > types, but it is definitely a lot trickier than plain classes, and we > should think about it for the design of reflection. > > @Andrew: forbidding reflection on closure types at least for the first > version of reflection seems like a good idea to me. This would allow us to > see what people use reflection for and if the use case for reflection on > lambda functions even arises. Could you point a document number for this > proposal so I can propose a patch to exclude closure types explicitly? > > -- > > --- > 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/. > -- --- 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/. --089e01182e484af45704fa8d3ab6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
N4027


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Thibaut Lutz <= thibaut.lutz@googlemail.com> wrote:
@Diggory: I would not call = the code portable if the number of members in the enumeration depends entir= ely on the compiler. Besides, since the names are obfuscated, the members w= ould have to be accessed by index, in which case one could not distinguish = between by-copy and by-ref members. I am not saying we definitely should or= should not allow reflection on closure types, but it is definitely a lot t= rickier than plain classes, and we should think about it for the design of = reflection.

@Andrew: forbidding reflection on closure types at least for= the first version of reflection seems like a good idea to me. This would a= llow us to see what people use reflection for and if the use case for refle= ction on lambda functions even arises. Could you point a document number fo= r this proposal so I can propose a patch to exclude closure types explicitl= y?

--

---
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/gro= up/std-proposals/.

--

---
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>.
--089e01182e484af45704fa8d3ab6-- .