220 15575 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 13:56:02 +0200 Lines: 26 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <7c4dadde-1f85-4a25-a05d-535cbd2f8278@isocpp.org> <8a6ed1f4-db1f-455b-ab43-cd2e932f84af@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 1420977370 16731 80.91.229.3 (11 Jan 2015 11:56:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 11:56:10 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC5JHI7A7ALRBUWJZGSQKGQEQ7ZG6RY@isocpp.org Sun Jan 11 12:56:05 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ob0-f198.google.com ([209.85.214.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YAH7k-0004cn-P2 for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 12:56:04 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f198.google.com with SMTP id vb8sf132410103obc.1 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 03:56:03 -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=X+EcXMwyCyle+MrKBnlVBXPmhBFdNmzMkI4vZxqp/sQ=; b=RcA+CoiRgkL3j1nDi4ybZQdlGNHidZbs39XKStVHZWY3bJfDoLXmzv8wZYMpU1LrG5 X2cXZMvfJQxzysMWsIz80QLzvxbrjB8rGFGkRvZZLgkilKF7P1XUQvB9WgO5ZC/93wOI EGokA6Qktc7lz/zccDs7CGI2/loJOLYLuhst1VpzExUqI6UGIGSDjbXbpunt4FipFROw 6kGkI3gS/o7HgXF62W4Vfl4tQTRYeFG7VYvrklFSJTO+6whBaACwoEm5Xf3HgZgHtgeA DtrLOy3qbTsKJFRDmWsG+N/W29s68/cP4FicC11Cd3OT0UCHZWdjFVx/RJXtjCJ0i3Uo l0CQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlEMzsUs+cDCRu2AMYUyJMapl41L4pKJcZSu20dk9zrTCfP8w7A1IST2d3UdONrSw98wJFr X-Received: by 10.182.110.196 with SMTP id ic4mr5291974obb.41.1420977363334; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 03:56:03 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.182.166.10 with SMTP id zc10ls773785obb.13.gmail; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 03:56:02 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.202.184.135 with SMTP id i129mr13710164oif.68.1420977362711; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 03:56:02 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from mail-oi0-x22a.google.com (mail-oi0-x22a.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22a]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a133si2211946oif.13.2015.01.11.03.56.02 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 11 Jan 2015 03:56:02 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22a as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22a; Original-Received: by mail-oi0-f42.google.com with SMTP id v63so17394506oia.1 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 03:56:02 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.60.141.103 with SMTP id rn7mr14714456oeb.73.1420977362620; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 03:56:02 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.76.154.2 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 03:56:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <8a6ed1f4-db1f-455b-ab43-cd2e932f84af@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:c06::22a 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:15575 Archived-At: On 11 January 2015 at 13:07, wrote: > 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. Well, doing such large-scale renaming is hard, because it's doubtful we can agree on the renamings. :) >> > 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. Well, I guess that should be explored separately. -- --- 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/. .