220 12906 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Smith Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: unevaluated this Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:01:04 -0700 Lines: 77 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <009e6218-1e2b-402d-ab1a-e8ebf29f8f77@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a7daa8da68905032372bf X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1410825674 32025 80.91.229.3 (16 Sep 2014 00:01:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 00:01:14 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDVNBJG4YAIBBQH33WQAKGQEGEDB63I@isocpp.org Tue Sep 16 02:01:08 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ob0-f200.google.com ([209.85.214.200]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XTgCf-0005Bq-VH for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 02:01:06 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f200.google.com with SMTP id m8sf23808964obr.11 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:01:05 -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:sender: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=uobeiMF2XXB20RAAQRYhBMXHCFWqitWzscf8jcLQZcc=; b=fEa9ofQNzbDBim672ebOX0A0bJA/EHhj6riBsaMyztT+fgE1R0D6hijMQT7lpUdDKs 5o8LQdaYOKGnxmXmH1RjamuDJO90BF/YuRx1Tvg6vo2EfiBkuEfcXAYWvzd1o6qVvJa7 8QUGDLiW0wGVlJ0TMDL1sJjFTxpY0YOpur+3XabyhSIbenOFI++4OlC0BaDcOsgTdgUE yBkvKjFhGycEW7iSdlL7W0+gBgWANW3bgfksmGWNEMC+T743vOlodDaqvyc7Hv/wAaSp NKSLesZ6ZCEVDONIp7zxBlu1pE35OCKFl9m9Fw+mAG038RNCqeJLWhNjWIdlDLCN0E0x 8DFQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmDOj8cM0i5ZPCTBIlDzdQzZ+LWVWWpESo0CDnAFP0XR2m5THyRXYMUOIWXSzcaRbdjPPod X-Received: by 10.42.199.79 with SMTP id er15mr17761427icb.16.1410825665079; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:01:05 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.49.41 with SMTP id p38ls1729636qga.55.gmail; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:01:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.52.141.45 with SMTP id rl13mr21747932vdb.49.1410825664398; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:01:04 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-vc0-x229.google.com (mail-vc0-x229.google.com [2607:f8b0:400c:c03::229]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id db17si6986897vdb.84.2014.09.15.17.01.04 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:01:04 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of metafoo@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c03::229 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400c:c03::229; Original-Received: by mail-vc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id ij19so4253624vcb.28 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:01:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.220.88.19 with SMTP id y19mr4022213vcl.70.1410825664176; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:01:04 -0700 (PDT) Original-Sender: metafoo@gmail.com Original-Received: by 10.220.76.200 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:01:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: richard@metafoo.co.uk X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of metafoo@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c03::229 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=metafoo@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@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:12906 Archived-At: --047d7b3a7daa8da68905032372bf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Matheus Izvekov wrote: > On Monday, September 15, 2014 7:43:13 PM UTC-3, Richard Smith wrote: >> >> >> Class completeness should not be a problem here any more than it would be >> if you named the class by its name; I don't anticipate any new problems in >> that direction, but we would have a new syntax for writing the existing >> problems. (I'd expect decltype(class) to be identical to naming the class >> in almost all ways -- except where the class is anonymous, or its name is >> hidden, or a typedef-name is disallowed etc.) >> > > So, using decltype(class) would you be able to name/declare a constructor > for an anonymous class? > Class names are one of the places where *typedef-name*s are disallowed, so I would not expect that to work. For member anonymous unions in particular, it's important that we continue to disallow constructors, since some of the language rules rely on there not being any. -- --- 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/. --047d7b3a7daa8da68905032372bf Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On M= on, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Matheus Izvekov <mizvekov@gmail.com>= wrote:
On Monday, September 15, 2014 7:43:13 PM UTC-3, Richard Smith wrote= :

Class completeness should not be a problem here a= ny more than it would be if you named the class by its name; I don't an= ticipate any new problems in that direction, but we would have a new syntax= for writing the existing problems. (I'd expect decltype(class) to be i= dentical to naming the class in almost all ways -- except where the class i= s anonymous, or its name is hidden, or a typedef-name is disallowed etc.)

So, using decltype(class= ) would you be able to name/declare a constructor for an anonymous class?

Class names are one of the place= s where typedef-names are disallowed, so I would not expect that to = work. For member anonymous unions in particular, it's important that we= continue to disallow constructors, since some of the language rules rely o= n there not being any.

--

---
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>.
--047d7b3a7daa8da68905032372bf-- .