220 15572 <8a6ed1f4-db1f-455b-ab43-cd2e932f84af@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: gmisocpp@gmail.com Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: RFC: Adding Symmetry Between shared_ptr and weak_ptr Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 03:07:06 -0800 (PST) Lines: 147 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <8a6ed1f4-db1f-455b-ab43-cd2e932f84af@isocpp.org> 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_1580_945259956.1420974426718" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1420974434 7558 80.91.229.3 (11 Jan 2015 11:07:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 11:07:14 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCM3TRNUXUDBBXFSZGSQKGQET4K2JHQ@isocpp.org Sun Jan 11 12:07:10 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-oi0-f70.google.com ([209.85.218.70]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YAGMP-00031c-NZ for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 12:07:09 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-oi0-f70.google.com with SMTP id i138sf115449996oig.1 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 03:07:08 -0800 (PST) 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 :content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=sVX+xg34VufQSUragBJ4/6IszaAWgeHZQUuYoavWtPg=; b=XRQe8bwRoeBfyaTn2VhEUoLcikwvrGWlClPMgKrid9RR2N1oy/beQ/1dZOYXDwihuj +3zLhRkoBJUpoMxkPyeSVSlYvu/sZQI9kNo+76raLO4mLpqi/AMTgBabyPFukiroqG5l 0GGsnIRzCr8MLhlZdcAt+8v1fkowvy5qh305xJH+oPt9DiYHsrixMnNDjGZzyqfjAOxE 3jnXA0Ii8TbhPppYYJFB4ppbNU3fiMLfqD6th50mtzYXDk0aTZx5nVA9FvcRHzS8Sg00 BRvYj49PI0CvCEWSZpobhfO8nsXZDlpH7e6/yOZyDwVZNM7LlU2DNu+xMosxEXrzNXwx hxBw== 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=sVX+xg34VufQSUragBJ4/6IszaAWgeHZQUuYoavWtPg=; b=XcIhTdjQdYQE4bgpW7xfueYwyhUcJAuvPEol0rZou2NT2/T0SIRQG9yuV6djQvDdLZ G9RL53rmzzTWPr9US7dD2yLDG1RgxMir4QsTy+uH6XECCMRKhUpnWbyhpaPAfbRBGSK2 4uKkwClTjguamAzdU1mRRQ+qXOJjYkQmznWbPv3w9jrKcpYuShSDmLXkz8rEbQ355z/G cn2y2CVDvDHnmL7FVqL66fa1gWpjTE4n/rTLKAx81O8nzGQl+lp72EMEGtmCLVXwVaBK xCxUcd/kUi3hIFD+O4/ymWpPPKI7wvSPTGK7F4LKQdOG031tX5LaNJtYQdVWr5tFBwRK b6Bg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQla3u2r2PhHx2zRXXHFIIjHmI6IEJZBpV/bXV9sFRk28ZwS3Bw+NybbwmGoYnyq2Eg1JzRk X-Received: by 10.42.198.77 with SMTP id en13mr19984766icb.21.1420974428648; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 03:07:08 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.107.128.206 with SMTP id k75ls1464093ioi.91.gmail; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 03:07:07 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.78.133 with SMTP id b5mr163509igx.4.1420974427882; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 03:07:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: gmisocpp@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:15572 Archived-At: ------=_Part_1580_945259956.1420974426718 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1581_2047543633.1420974426718" ------=_Part_1581_2047543633.1420974426718 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 9:02:08 PM UTC+13, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > > 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? > The proposal says "If it were not too late to rename lock..." etc. so I was wondering why it's too late to rename anything, but I misread things as they go on to say basically it's fine so forget what I said here. > > > 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. I was wondering generally if there was a bunch of undesirably named things if the committee found it easier procedurally to collect them all up in a batch to rename them or deal with each item as a individual proposal. Anyway it doesn't matter if it's a distraction to this proposal. > > > > And is there any reason not to make [[warn_unused_result]].standard now? > > How is that related to the proposal at hand? > It's related in so much as the OP's proposal directly refers to it and it's come up before, but it's not essential to this proposal. -- --- 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_1581_2047543633.1420974426718 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 9:02:08 PM UTC+13, = Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On 10 January 2015 at = 23:26,  <gmis...@gmail.com= > wrote:
> Ville, a few things slightly touched on by this proposal:
>
> In your view, if the naming of lock/unlock is of sufficient irrita= tion,
> 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 ta= kes
a shared_ptr? Why would that be deprecated?

The proposal says "If it were not too = late to rename lock..." etc. so I was wondering why it's too late to rename= anything, but I misread things as they go on to say basically it's fi= ne so forget what I said here.

> And if there are sufficient other candidates where renaming might = be useful,
> like the empty() -> is_empty() example referenced; would collec= ting 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 recom= mendations. I saw renaming
> shared_mutex -> timed_shared_mutex or something was another ren= ame case
> floating around at one point, but I'm sure that one or some might = be better

That renaming was already done.

I was wondering generally if = there was a bunch of undesirably named things if the committee found it eas= ier procedurally to collect them all up in a batch to rename them or deal w= ith each item as a individual proposal. Anyway it doesn't matter if it= 's a distraction to this proposal.


> And is there any reason not to make [[warn_unused_result]].st= andard now?

How is that related to the proposal at hand?

It's related in so much as = the OP's proposal directly refers to it and it's come up before, but&n= bsp;it's not essential to this proposal.

--

---
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_1581_2047543633.1420974426718-- ------=_Part_1580_945259956.1420974426718-- .