220 15174 <4564984.fmRXBbuPl8@tjmaciei-mobl4> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thiago Macieira Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Inline variables - superior of templates and constexpr. Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:52:19 -0800 Lines: 39 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <4564984.fmRXBbuPl8@tjmaciei-mobl4> References: <84da1bdc-3356-4c40-a29a-bdd4c0b058b4@isocpp.org> <9cf7dc87-0ae6-44c3-a89d-aa13b71b41a2@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 1419015155 9773 80.91.229.3 (19 Dec 2014 18:52:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 18:52:35 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCB4TK757YBRB3PH2GSAKGQERCXSFQA@isocpp.org Fri Dec 19 19:52:30 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-wg0-f69.google.com ([74.125.82.69]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Y22f7-0000Gs-S1 for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 19:52:29 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-wg0-f69.google.com with SMTP id x12sf1091571wgg.4 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:52:29 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=PayzTGPuf+kr3dkat17WZP35QZxb9OMbW7529Kjpgpw=; b=cNKIL0uC1tXv/TsPm4wTrqwKI10JkddalDV3ecWfeY9kv4WaC6jT2EtKafg9lZkyIa fBejAvBtAKqdVNUso84XvYzblP4u7Z/Fxh95XZ+0kMfN+gBzfAj2XVqL7/wv40BVycov Qt7nwZqxiG5PAwVbZVHlH/ccp7Qr9MBnP8jCEHLG6rpQL/t3/IIbmj9z8SPRrUpQIDPN e2FpOaxh3NogGurC9NJko4nMUYcMWug4Xy3isrp1iy5NmBW7VEkZ+TsmIyuZ/K7sEdkJ 0EtzEdZ8cH9dkLLwyRxGQ/0uup3KvNi3Q72lo9YggPMCKKghnB2azV5DqM69CIqrYYeg 35rw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnoBnyPtNtlGtMFSBaVV2Cg1HIaxYIsGISbzEZJnP9vQHkpCJ86I6sNQNt3m78sd1ITznlS X-Received: by 10.180.7.226 with SMTP id m2mr665424wia.5.1419015149434; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:52:29 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.180.94.136 with SMTP id dc8ls206358wib.18.gmail; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:52:28 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.208.69 with SMTP id mc5mr8553209wic.25.1419015148728; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:52:28 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from gondolin.macieira.info (gondolin.macieira.info. [2a01:4f8:d13:f81:21c:14ff:fe01:12a3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f9si4966988wie.14.2014.12.19.10.52.28 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:52:28 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of thiago@macieira.org designates 2a01:4f8:d13:f81:21c:14ff:fe01:12a3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a01:4f8:d13:f81:21c:14ff:fe01:12a3; Original-Received: from tjmaciei-mobl4.localnet (jfdmzpr03-ext.jf.intel.com [134.134.139.72]) by gondolin.macieira.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BCAC511BA63 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:52:26 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: KMail/4.14.3 (Linux/3.11.10-21-desktop; KDE/4.14.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <9cf7dc87-0ae6-44c3-a89d-aa13b71b41a2@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: thiago@macieira.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of thiago@macieira.org designates 2a01:4f8:d13:f81:21c:14ff:fe01:12a3 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=thiago@macieira.org 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:15174 Archived-At: On Friday 19 December 2014 10:05:09 sasho648 wrote: > You don't care that my construction is twice as easy to use and understand > than 'template''s and 'constexpr''s. You don't care it helps solving one > very big problem (static checks for function parameters). If it were twice as easy, we would care. It's not twice as easy to understand. First it seemed like you wanted to do something in-between constexpr and runtime, then you started adding new syntax, inline typename, etc. and modifying the program's structures like creating new enum types. That's not easier, that *more* *complex* than existing solutions. And moreover, you have not described fully what you want. Break it down into its component parts, describe the syntax, where it would exist, etc. And do not insult people. You will only get ignored if you insult people. Assume everyone in this list is smarter than you and write accordingly. Treat their replies as decent and honest requests for more information and feedback on your solution. > You don't care it could safe you hand-writing code. You don't care that it > could help explicitly optimizing some code. All you care for is one rubbish > idea written for 2mins which doesn't add anything. Tell me, > David Krauss, how your genius idea helps us, what the heck is have in > common with my proposal? -- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint: E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358 -- --- 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/. .