220 12990 <0762e1e8-a99e-41c8-a96f-49fc824178ba@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Leor Zolman Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Idea for new contextual keyword Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 19:03:00 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 55 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <0762e1e8-a99e-41c8-a96f-49fc824178ba@isocpp.org> References: <2ff42d9d-16df-4040-8ae1-0a17d4f78d97@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2418_1340099587.1411092180322" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1411092191 1475 80.91.229.3 (19 Sep 2014 02:03:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 02:03:11 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDMMPPEW7UBRBVM552QAKGQERAXFO4A@isocpp.org Fri Sep 19 04:03:04 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-oi0-f70.google.com ([209.85.218.70]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XUnXK-00029X-Lu for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 04:03:02 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-oi0-f70.google.com with SMTP id u20sf9138714oif.9 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 19:03:01 -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=KekEiEeuqViyxwlSBsVrRL/EzZOz0u+/am1cB0K05NM=; b=MyLiNKKWVcUMdwtoUawySb5seweRkNEw36V+7+Dj4c6UTUGHIORj89zsTBFJ2MvjBW B53rfE0SRB6asVgQH1O3Jwge3k5obmDAAIxdJFQ/IrdoxSH3XKkDcvst/LS0aw/uKRUr hFKdj9iy5fvRUFHgjs5Hsv4+IEovPbaG+e0wfN5sIL0ut5aNvbBBPzWlBZZbLcTtKZe5 3m4CGMvxkrrFphKeKBgokOOp624MEcwTPWTY4mdBKrTA2gayknAEcVYZo+s6Af6j3K3X Z+EslIJ9FSKnTXp+lMu/0/V9Zj2FPuiVuYbrt2/7miLU3RriU4r7WrbBVAtIMemV9i8H HOeA== 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=KekEiEeuqViyxwlSBsVrRL/EzZOz0u+/am1cB0K05NM=; b=VDRNkdtlWxSQzezYt0xdlskDgrlD9Hk/9RJZrGWLpdsH/QnXO5SYF0NeDRrB3Ic9xZ kZZt02U84BiJXJ6nPQuByPe0glleAOF8tX9SLoSJlJ0+HBqd99WQE5JGckerco0VVPeC mOSKv237r1VGYdhJdH8hI89wbdSMt2xZmLnLhs+YH4fsGB3fPQ6+a/LQiW8omr/uOpsx lSh0Gim6C3TX1My+c+xZGmktLE3XDt4wtzcCSifBcVhUfNDNVnRDtvUhIshoYrOsMeXK 6m3GmKvYFq7iyySt/Axn2kO2FMzqsBwHN+BWm6Z26KSRb2trOaVp4w9pv8n0r/Gd4lIq oVbw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQndOddZGV8KyrUlXtrtxGsQob37Pcp0c1IYBGneOK2DKqS3h4JaAfHaZm3BdRC8+XEDqO0p X-Received: by 10.182.16.129 with SMTP id g1mr2283947obd.32.1411092181771; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 19:03:01 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.101.40 with SMTP id t37ls542449qge.42.gmail; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 19:03:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.108.97 with SMTP id i88mr1067qgf.8.1411092180894; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 19:03:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: leorzolman@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:12990 Archived-At: ------=_Part_2418_1340099587.1411092180322 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I meant to say this in my previous post above, but got distracted: I see a potential issue with 'nohide' in that, generally speaking, MOST declarations are meant "not to be hidden", so where exactly would a programmer draw the line? Are some kinds of declarations "more likely" to be hidden than others? Or, to the point, more likely to be hidden inadvertently? What would a style guide have to say, then, about what constitutes a "stylish" use of 'nohide'? I don't have the answer. I'm thinking that there may not BE an answer... -- --- 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_2418_1340099587.1411092180322 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I meant to say this in my previous post above, but got dis= tracted: I see a potential issue with 'nohide' in that, generally speaking,= MOST declarations are meant "not to be hidden", so where exactly would a p= rogrammer draw the line? Are some kinds of declarations "more likely" to be= hidden than others? Or, to the point, more likely to be hidden inadvertent= ly?

What would a style guide have to say, then, about what constitu= tes a "stylish" use of 'nohide'? I don't have the answer. I'm thinking that= there may not BE an answer...


--

---
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_2418_1340099587.1411092180322-- .