220 15571 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ville Voutilainen Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: RFC: Adding Symmetry Between shared_ptr and weak_ptr Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 10:02:06 +0200 Lines: 35 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <7c4dadde-1f85-4a25-a05d-535cbd2f8278@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 1420963334 32576 80.91.229.3 (11 Jan 2015 08:02:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 08:02:14 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC5JHI7A7ALRB7W3ZCSQKGQEQVEBWEA@isocpp.org Sun Jan 11 09:02:09 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ie0-f197.google.com ([209.85.223.197]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YADTM-0005v2-IW for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 09:02:08 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-ie0-f197.google.com with SMTP id x19sf120990396ier.0 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 00:02:07 -0800 (PST) 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: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=6m8pCtSqgQe1R8NH/kIm+FEYQho0FhRA2boBcizx0QA=; b=j6Vg0YyyWAV+JRtJyYG1/iXldy9UytoVY/IKXNxVF7Bl/XPBgA/uNTEyRkBP/RB6uv JJg4BrwX8P2py4oXctkNkEL0rzmZy+z1W3k8IV7wJyttJX8jppPitumCW2hGDWXcIjcn sN7lcpFqdleJqDVtz/GmLFDjbPmk6oC1QJesrxJ/wr3mrNnvRhOxFHG91bcbiieFjSQx o4MZv3ZPdZqtG0IfMgVHt/BEaY3j7JasLhDUC5etMHwSDVQiLnBPUHuWnXo5kKOSd3qu crlnMEyqcAAYTqEyhKM2bhPTqYFULb8LuN8Oaq9LLxAhmxujg/hBdW/izbSTYDByO1kT sI1Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmjD3H4p17VrEoSZFhForzZc6dKsd0Bd2jVCWADji4LOqLQz5NGjdh05elcJXUU8q9Jvb48 X-Received: by 10.50.225.7 with SMTP id rg7mr9059640igc.5.1420963327533; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 00:02:07 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.182.75.227 with SMTP id f3ls894131obw.4.gmail; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 00:02:06 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.202.67.136 with SMTP id q130mr13447779oia.120.1420963326536; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 00:02:06 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from mail-ob0-x22c.google.com (mail-ob0-x22c.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id xr5si8270727oeb.31.2015.01.11.00.02.06 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 11 Jan 2015 00:02:06 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22c; Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f172.google.com with SMTP id va8so18698993obc.3 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 00:02:06 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.202.196.206 with SMTP id u197mr13354078oif.21.1420963326178; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 00:02:06 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.76.154.2 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 00:02:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <7c4dadde-1f85-4a25-a05d-535cbd2f8278@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:c01::22c 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:15571 Archived-At: On 10 January 2015 at 23:26, wrote: > Ville, a few things slightly touched on by this proposal: > > In your view, if the naming of lock/unlock is of sufficient irritation, > would it be so bad to add [[deprecated]] to the existing names and/or add > the preferred new ones? Deprecate what, exactly? The conversion constructor of weak_ptr that takes a shared_ptr? Why would that be deprecated? > And if there are sufficient other candidates where renaming might be useful, > like the empty() -> is_empty() example referenced; would collecting the That function name is water under the bridge. If you want to entertain the idea of changing it, you need to do so if/when a new standard library is created. > make a separate post asking for rename recommendations. I saw renaming > shared_mutex -> timed_shared_mutex or something was another rename case > floating around at one point, but I'm sure that one or some might be better That renaming was already done. > And is there any reason not to make [[warn_unused_result]].standard now? How is that related to the proposal at hand? -- --- 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/. .