220 15251 <89bab42c-78a8-4949-b362-57749eb6e366@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: sasho648 Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Some constexpr changes. Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:47:04 -0800 (PST) Lines: 115 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <89bab42c-78a8-4949-b362-57749eb6e366@isocpp.org> References: Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_713_1544699603.1419371224125" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1419371234 32657 80.91.229.3 (23 Dec 2014 21:47:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 21:47:14 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDBNZXHN2QPRBWGF46SAKGQEKR73TCI@isocpp.org Tue Dec 23 22:47:06 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ob0-f197.google.com ([209.85.214.197]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Y3XIH-0003Ru-Nr for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 22:47:05 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f197.google.com with SMTP id va2sf189489650obc.0 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:47:05 -0800 (PST) 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:content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=Cma0gkVAdbknK+w3fifOHKtpspS1WZqYPwvN7MvEN20=; b=DXSCmZ/zqLSpYRGdGBQEST3qGNNKCVYXLY16plS7hc1uIc1gD18qvMf0xAXh25OkVC /cM974Bbloir1P9xgwcBvvxoJ5UV1qmi7pNKwkPfEsFevO4Z5n0kW3gZOJzRfPcfLMsU 0tzHJKRSNF2rFaoIHY/GL4PoQDieswhx05lnwNlfyyN6WG+0k7UCjvmz5BkU/mUDW6uB vwd+oTEfX2lR+Fi3NY/IxkJw3YB6FoGxTJbK+PvH4kpiiOXSROIRRd8Ij7Yh5jbr3Pm+ 1WwlDUQND+0Lnd1A5LHUz5raxuv6bxC8J37Ik/KGOqO/mF3mPYX/Y5omnIv8YNzi5fu3 QepQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnovTJtjhK52ysYwaIAU++5rXNmOO/VD4EOV2M7AJIYEWip5C48oXErzIJ/SLbH5WN/Xdmz X-Received: by 10.182.27.1 with SMTP id p1mr25400495obg.44.1419371224951; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:47:04 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.84.244 with SMTP id l107ls6164046qgd.47.gmail; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:47:04 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.107.119 with SMTP id g110mr27476qgf.32.1419371224390; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:47:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: sasho648@mail.bg 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:15251 Archived-At: ------=_Part_713_1544699603.1419371224125 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_714_836419038.1419371224125" ------=_Part_714_836419038.1419371224125 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I thought that it'll be clearer, 'constexpr' function specifier, to be written after the function declaration. Also as a keyword that will restrict code-generation in an constant-expression function, I thought that keyword 'true' before 'constexpr' will be more meaningful then 'explicit'. So here are some examples using this new syntax: constexpr int FuncAdd(int a, int b); // 'FuncAdd' have a return-type of 'constexpr int' int FuncAdd(int a, int b) constexpr; // 'FuncAdd' function is 'constexpr' int FuncAdd(int a, int b) true constexpr; // 'FuncAdd' function is 'true constexpr' and so it isn't allowed to generate run-time code What would you say - is this way better? -- --- 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_714_836419038.1419371224125 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I thought that it'll be clearer, 'constexpr' function spec= ifier, to be written after the function declaration. Also as a keyword that= will restrict code-generation in an constant-expression function, I though= t that keyword 'true' before 'constexpr' will be more meaningful then 'expl= icit'. So here are some examples using this new syntax:

constexpr int= FuncAdd(int a, int b); <= /span>// 'FuncAdd= ' have a return-type of 'constexpr int'

int FuncAdd(i= nt a, int b) constexpr; <= /span>// 'FuncAdd= ' function is 'constexpr'

int Fun= cAdd(int a, int b) tr= ue = constexpr<= span style=3D"color: #660;" class=3D"styled-by-prettify">; // 'FuncAdd' function is 'true const= expr' and so it isn't allowed to generate run-time code
=


<= /span>What would you say - is this way better?

--

---
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_714_836419038.1419371224125-- ------=_Part_713_1544699603.1419371224125-- .