220 15279 <1656599.9LJbndL61Q@tjmaciei-mobl4> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thiago Macieira Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Some constexpr changes. Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 10:28:09 -0200 Lines: 32 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <1656599.9LJbndL61Q@tjmaciei-mobl4> References: <1954609.KPCRKbTeas@tjmaciei-mobl4> 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 1419424105 26598 80.91.229.3 (24 Dec 2014 12:28:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:28:25 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCB4TK757YBRBX7C5KSAKGQEERXM5TA@isocpp.org Wed Dec 24 13:28:18 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-la0-f71.google.com ([209.85.215.71]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Y3l32-0008A9-TH for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 13:28:16 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-la0-f71.google.com with SMTP id q1sf5034167lam.10 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 04:28:16 -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=h/XlP9IewZAK60iycKKpC64L7E8tVDLnlHao27Ylnsw=; b=BoC5hPbgroPH32XVKNX9aJ3hJVQxtU3m3CkweieR+KoX92KqH9amIB+Z2ser04c64L 9mqePZcFnwEN/2dQxsScccVrpdRR1oo6mfKg8XGJVBE5ZlscKy4KnYEQa1gC07VQA37J 6fsAuMUk39iNSVEi3Hw8VavXypAFFtj0/kmo8w97Nb1ykrb1k5DSKsflX6tdTM5dvZGW ZnLyvI0z0hoP9iayvrgQ76b42Cge6SaPsLXTIcYTtj+vSr6KVO0qq4fYs/iBufjiIDVc xDYD04W2xp4vJclz4JRZwQ3zFaBR07tMesIo35ItooSTQIJavJ4TyFvdpP69ACsfMPm3 oy9g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnUavJioB5lpmC8Eb9GER9qKYdFuqazzXSNK1wedC2FgTMFJDxwYSc/TPDe/nZ06TyJQEJT X-Received: by 10.112.166.102 with SMTP id zf6mr187395lbb.12.1419424096268; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 04:28:16 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.180.98.38 with SMTP id ef6ls415742wib.52.gmail; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 04:28:15 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.72.199 with SMTP id f7mr51629317wiv.58.1419424095452; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 04:28:15 -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 ey9si31647002wid.74.2014.12.24.04.28.15 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 04:28:15 -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 (unknown [179.111.101.130]) by gondolin.macieira.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A230511B448 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 04:28:14 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: KMail/4.14.3 (Linux/3.11.10-21-desktop; KDE/4.14.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: 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:15279 Archived-At: On Wednesday 24 December 2014 11:15:38 Ville Voutilainen wrote: > That "always compile-time, never run-time" is "always static > initialization, never > dynamic initialization", and I don't see a requirement that it cannot > be performed > at run-time. Therefore the suggestion that no run-time code can be generated > seems like a new restriction to me. Yes, I know, a high-quality > implementation will do that initialization at translation time, but I don't > think we require that to > be so. And if we want to start requiring that, the question is, why would > we? Indeed. As long as it happens on static initialisation time, I guess it suffices. The user can't tell the static initialisation that happened at translation time from static initialisation that happened very early at runtime, provided all static initialisation in all translation units is done before the first dynamic initialisation happens. -- 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/. .