220 12996 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ville Voutilainen Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Idea for new contextual keyword Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:34:06 +0300 Lines: 27 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <2ff42d9d-16df-4040-8ae1-0a17d4f78d97@isocpp.org> <0762e1e8-a99e-41c8-a96f-49fc824178ba@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 1411112056 25983 80.91.229.3 (19 Sep 2014 07:34:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 07:34:16 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC5JHI7A7ALRB3VY56QAKGQEUGJGCTQ@isocpp.org Fri Sep 19 09:34:09 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-oa0-f71.google.com ([209.85.219.71]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XUshk-0005el-6O for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:34:08 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-oa0-f71.google.com with SMTP id jd19sf12175248oac.6 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 00:34:07 -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=fNUqreCP5P+CSpBLn9jEY+Ft5vuU9Nf+8Y/ESMlWosY=; b=YaAVe/zMGX2fzUF4ERCipvoxP2IYKqcn/Hr5lFch9wrKfL1emJTAJsSvyd4eb+aOBT hq0qLPAsQ7yrcpKgVFApTxEvTPRPTRfVNQPglogCWcLN0UORQUxGVTVe9jeVXtSTuhsx WYDRVQuQMnZYjjTL5zXA9PZk1NaPxy8wwxO+2t8EK1nFARGdMOekRkxeomLAC13dDkG2 qO/8LXNi43VQwiisCwVr90YOq+v2fQxxWzPIlPHAqn1S8Pd2MN6VfJRQHojMq+n1xxmI HGtt28Ei28rtzyUvMsZDzMgxc2e+yLbVdxqPZmC7OHkDcx7or9TH/eFxM6q4w2T8BfMl Lmfg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmixmvpmtDBufVS+vPjDuWZG9jhAor4kF/2IPbxIbshPsQse+SwqpTcmMS+a147bml2U2sX X-Received: by 10.182.61.111 with SMTP id o15mr3579114obr.13.1411112047295; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 00:34:07 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.182.120.228 with SMTP id lf4ls945467obb.30.gmail; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 00:34:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.226.202 with SMTP id ru10mr6272886obc.77.1411112046452; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 00:34:06 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-oi0-x233.google.com (mail-oi0-x233.google.com [2607:f8b0:4003:c06::233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b3si930639obz.66.2014.09.19.00.34.06 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 19 Sep 2014 00:34:06 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c06::233 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c06::233; Original-Received: by mail-oi0-f51.google.com with SMTP id x69so1356026oia.38 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 00:34:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.186.73 with SMTP id fi9mr6626578obc.0.1411112046376; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 00:34:06 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.76.151.196 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 00:34:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <0762e1e8-a99e-41c8-a96f-49fc824178ba@isocpp.org> 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:f8b0:4003:c06::233 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:12996 Archived-At: On 19 September 2014 05:03, Leor Zolman wrote: > 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? I'd say that things like assignment operators are more likely to be hidden inadvertently than member functions that have actual names. I would also expect that such operators are much more likely to be hidden deliberately. > 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... Well, I would realistically expect that a style guide would recommend it to be used often. The cases where it shouldn't be used or where it should be allowed to be bypassed are rare, I think. But they do exist. -- --- 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/. .