220 12922 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Matheus Izvekov Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: unevaluated this Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 62 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <009e6218-1e2b-402d-ab1a-e8ebf29f8f77@isocpp.org> <1585029.X3zftQQog7@tjmaciei-mobl4> <9086df18-7f96-4376-b7ea-8c9e9f9e31a3@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_348_97213119.1410868284586" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1410868295 19507 80.91.229.3 (16 Sep 2014 11:51:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:51:35 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCOKZ27XTMNRBPOI4CQAKGQEGVBAHHQ@isocpp.org Tue Sep 16 13:51:28 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ob0-f199.google.com ([209.85.214.199]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XTrI8-0001Ly-11 for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:51:28 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f199.google.com with SMTP id wp18sf9474517obc.6 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:51:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to: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=L8mulfo4kKEXAu6HFGQ8oxvBIS1ng2YYdYLD8+lCESE=; b=gqZitCJ4Sm0k1KDoHCKZlAW27H+I2awiR1ENO0iVMqbSO+ptNHAYlr/tUlLlwyOkUX nrKWrVbMFdcoamwBThFuSq/tyGiFOjUz/C56q+hVMC6c2j3mBjBa7GISM+fTdBTToged Eu+/bnaZE3tvmKc2sjbD7aCyq0trFa2GCTSbkHN/xAWeNdIktFtS0PaQodLH7pEgX81O 4YKWIUQqV48X+njqawKVGUYzcxdBboMYKxfODZZ3oFN2JdJ8MJic8n7qsdpUVaAZ3vNJ X/mleF2m18PeVuG1B6L70sSayLNshFG++wzQIBRfz7iSTXf6Lz6bsnL2QwR/kOZ/Qk1R ewsQ== 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: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=L8mulfo4kKEXAu6HFGQ8oxvBIS1ng2YYdYLD8+lCESE=; b=VaA0zhU1UlbtQvpevSEAiQLxZCULRWbFuqoyRZhsYbB7koEmQek3MrvRo36E3eeSm8 /h9+gKcNvOeCOWPdnxwSQ0m/z2iAacn5vAC4HRMMYLyS1p40fcowaDz0iciGvNm2NLjk PPaqZfzRuaBt29CYoUj6/lz9d6pG+EL21lezFnfx1RoECqkRdeXBaErFM6vBjtQshc2z TimKMM13ZzBvPNZNiGi8/lp2tEeuEJiVx5MThvQOG6insqbbjs2B5vPLTYLjXF6V/wT/ pfMaMrkQgEQsj2H0H99ORwTBLPdKG2EeSjIE/0UUDFhzs4hLGjofL8vfU/J46s/NpMrB 6p7Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlWS0iZTrkfCgmwY68IOrKzbZ0SOfK5d8A+q3lnPXU8oKPsjq4VRof1qm8sCW+hh8iDcHTt X-Received: by 10.43.56.209 with SMTP id wd17mr19444435icb.6.1410868286095; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:51:26 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.109.246 with SMTP id l109ls1974927qgf.1.gmail; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:51:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.105.53 with SMTP id b50mr633725qgf.3.1410868285434; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:51:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: mizvekov@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:12922 Archived-At: ------=_Part_348_97213119.1410868284586 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 12:51:41 AM UTC-3, Sean Middleditch wrote: > > So the consensus I'm getting out of this is that I should abandon > unevaluated this and return to the decltype(class) idea and write an > actual paper about that instead. Anyone think that's a bad idea and I > should stay the current course? > > Would it be too hard for this to get accepted if it introduced another keyword? If it wouldn't, how about a new keyword that acts like an alias for the name of the current class? It could be used both for specifying a type, and naming constructors / destructors. :) -- --- 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_348_97213119.1410868284586 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 12:51:41 AM UTC-3, Sean Mid= dleditch wrote:
So the consensu= s I'm getting out of this is that I should abandon
unevaluated this and return to the decltype(class) idea and write an
actual paper about that instead. Anyone think that's a bad idea and I
should stay the current course?


Would it be too hard for this to get accepted if = it introduced another keyword?
If it wouldn't, how about a new keyword t= hat acts like an alias for the name of the current class?
It could be us= ed both for specifying a type, and naming constructors / destructors. :)

--

---
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_348_97213119.1410868284586-- .