220 12121 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ville Voutilainen Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: std::order -- what do you think? Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 19:43:11 +0300 Lines: 29 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <0ba9643b-7a18-4ab6-a8f7-caec2450c061@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1406738600 31107 80.91.229.3 (30 Jul 2014 16:43:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:43:20 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC5JHI7A7ALRBIGB4SPAKGQEV2OKNBY@isocpp.org Wed Jul 30 18:43:14 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-vc0-f198.google.com ([209.85.220.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XCWy9-0001fF-Kn for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 18:43:13 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-vc0-f198.google.com with SMTP id le20sf4324516vcb.9 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:43:12 -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=G4vg44EVJvTAecNtRCta0WQ5khv4Jd/e+pEWbBbUfd0=; b=hySLWVow9Y0d9aixjL2sDl4uS5BVuB1BlsYCp77lOoXnpEdd2phgvechZ46z0sw36v KhdnlSXbpjBSn6v/Rhbq4Qb/iC8mn5QD8bove0ohQMMqNyxzBz1c8lq3nWf6S3bQSzKv tQ2rpMx2h7Fr2nCcYPHM2daxP9g++VARury1T4BCpYqEbnWaf29x9+8epZMiEQRA9nNZ +cDU8hzV8+tIqPEFOVz8oKeXQ42OKe2W5GWpnRnBKqmhLm0fFUTNgpRNm1/mYVaYaLe5 XVnfbUh6SmHbtpI8Z5pDiqnv/KpBvODN4ZvAMsP4ohdNN/XutMLlaXj+RYikMBLrLpfI Zy6w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmdi7dacXLQlgBAqqoRroYkG8jir9RJhJjwX5+/XG6MLdGfCG04ARicsDPVfoncjBguFvqx X-Received: by 10.236.26.105 with SMTP id b69mr2011702yha.55.1406738592837; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:43:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.34.44 with SMTP id k41ls627106qgk.78.gmail; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:43:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.224.88.129 with SMTP id a1mr8820941qam.23.1406738592240; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:43:12 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-qg0-x22e.google.com (mail-qg0-x22e.google.com [2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k9si1585198qas.57.2014.07.30.09.43.12 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:43:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22e as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22e; Original-Received: by mail-qg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id z60so1934220qgd.19 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:43:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.44.67 with SMTP id f61mr7982029qga.44.1406738591621; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:43:11 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.224.31.137 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:43:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: ville.voutilainen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22e as permitted sender) smtp.mail=ville.voutilainen@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:12121 Archived-At: On 30 July 2014 19:40, Tony V E wrote: >> > Basically, we need to decide if "like T" is an attainable design goal >> > (and >> > without overloaded operator . it isn't), and whether getting half-way >> > there >> > is a benefit or a hindrance. >> Funny, it seems to me that LEWG has decided that a couple of times >> already. > What did it decide? benefit or hindrance? both? > Seems to have decided half-way there. Thus far it seems to me that LEWG has decided to include the relational operators. So I don't know who's this "we" who need to decide it yet again. > Yes, I agree they have decided a number of times. I expect they will decide a couple more times. :) Unless, of course, people stop rehashing every single part of the design, but perhaps that's too high a hope. -- --- 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/. .