220 13698 <9500cd77-a615-4785-8140-766969e920ab@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: masse.nicolas@gmail.com Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: extention methods or UFCS Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 04:05:11 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 98 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <9500cd77-a615-4785-8140-766969e920ab@isocpp.org> References: <555dce3a-8f1c-475d-81c0-9dc56846f03a@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_10326_1237235647.1412593511969" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1412593521 19309 80.91.229.3 (6 Oct 2014 11:05:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 11:05:21 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCCJBHV4UALBB2HOZGQQKGQEPN7HVGA@isocpp.org Mon Oct 06 13:05:14 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ie0-f198.google.com ([209.85.223.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Xb66M-0001Fr-Eu for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 13:05:14 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-ie0-f198.google.com with SMTP id tr6sf21636668ieb.1 for ; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 04:05:13 -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=Vmmm8Ujv98YREM1JSflPJ/pI4hyqF/QPMaAF9UVyXbM=; b=rFLCMk9j9Ye23cFfGTSPGNnVlNqEwzpPUkuoaycukEvBTKwXEfQavSJoCH2/yuglAy 3SSiODb4IzaV9/29l3agGEQnSD9BINNgN5CE0p1O2+xXxonrB3/WEgU6pAU0wqW6V+a1 wHqEGWNyKxOKyGV4U/TyI3JERiUmJv+KDPqaVgpB2TLs9h/RhhN1ZOv2tb9gJ+L1uR5P UteQysLDPEeclcO7nyZpc74bDfFCo944icXQ8Mi+qSpksNw5OSSc5WZ6viqlHX3qV7qG e5wISxmmVg3k9cj7cYLWZ9VpqC7zmc1MrBp8HcggcWPL1Yf0HyVhijitcA9Ga1NNPa// zZwA== 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=Vmmm8Ujv98YREM1JSflPJ/pI4hyqF/QPMaAF9UVyXbM=; b=KrLqA6rkxuh27ZnhU39isWnw2GO39ZOUfTGg7HlTujvVMWm5ImPQHvANhDgDgKC6XN +0SjPiP5beA4zbHhxFl7/FHeH35ksCujgtsK3d2PZNFc0a/2YXNT3RGXWt2BJ9eC3+sL avA+O9B3D3zed8Wqs6CH4TCTzaNF788NkqV39duqMVQytKqK9OXR/8pbznICuv/P/BCZ Nj7+tO1YnLQbNYTAowap40MmbDQ8M1QgtbWPdjxGs7Py/cy4Mu4x2dTQCO53wXwxVAMp 5BhZ/Q9B3zbib1MfzjSg4i3/uqkLSbiryPyKFEWcChNw7MNezkGKnUS3qo2dGwtS0k7R cxyA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkd6BqVo5EaAwIpYrz3zE2ml8H0b5mTdlCccAdHk7v5LYcoOyL13ZfMMsc9G59Umw7FM7TE X-Received: by 10.50.25.129 with SMTP id c1mr8858509igg.7.1412593513160; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 04:05:13 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.97.164 with SMTP id m33ls94603qge.36.gmail; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 04:05:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.21.51 with SMTP id 48mr12842qgk.12.1412593512272; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 04:05:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <555dce3a-8f1c-475d-81c0-9dc56846f03a@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: Masse.Nicolas@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:13698 Archived-At: ------=_Part_10326_1237235647.1412593511969 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Things like extensions methods have already been discussed here. see Have "extension methods" been proposed for C++1y? (or any previous standard) ;-) For D's UFCS, I like the idea, but I think there will some difficulties like passing the 1st argument by a reference, by copying the value or using a pointer. Also there could be a question about the fact that the 1st parameter could or should be constant (remember, this in c++ is declared as a constant pointer). Anyway, as I said i like the idea. On Sunday, October 5, 2014 5:32:31 AM UTC+2, walter1234 wrote: > > > How much support or interest is there in the C++ community for either of > these at the minute. > > Has anyone tried to extend any C++ compiler to add these? > > If someone added them in a nonstandard fork, what would be the chances of > getting them accepted in a mainstream compiler (behind a toggle). > > > it's absence my biggest gripe in the language (asymmetry between methods & > functions, & how it interacts with header files); > > Of everything i've seen, my favourite solution is D's UFCS idea. Rusts' > traits/impls are ok, but they have their own annoyance (I prefer how open > free-functions are) > > its' about ease of refactoring between methods/free-function code, and > readability (having the convenient chaining/aproximate-infix syntax always > available) > > extention methods wouldn't be expected in vtables, just for compile-time > dispatch. > -- --- 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_10326_1237235647.1412593511969 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Things like extensions methods have already been discussed= here. see Have "extension methods" been propose= d for C++1y? (or any previous standard) ;-)
For D's UFCS, I like th= e idea, but I think there will some difficulties like passing the 1st argum= ent by a reference, by copying the value or using a pointer. Also there cou= ld be a question about the fact that the 1st parameter could or should be c= onstant (remember, this in c++ is declared as a constant pointer).
Anywa= y, as I said i like the idea.


On Sunday, October 5, 2014 5:32:31= AM UTC+2, walter1234 wrote:

How much support or interest is there in the C++ co= mmunity for either of these at the minute.

Has any= one tried to extend any C++ compiler to add these?

If someone added them in a nonstandard fork, what would be the chances of = getting them accepted in a mainstream compiler (behind a toggle).


it's absence my biggest gripe in the languag= e (asymmetry between methods & functions, & how it interacts with h= eader files);

Of everything i've seen, my favourit= e solution is D's UFCS idea. Rusts' traits/impls are ok, but they have thei= r own annoyance (I prefer how open free-functions are)

=
its' about ease of refactoring between methods/free-function code, and= readability (having the convenient chaining/aproximate-infix syntax always= available)

extention methods wouldn't be expected= in vtables, just for compile-time dispatch.

--

---
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_10326_1237235647.1412593511969-- .