220 15594 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Krauss Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: RFC: Adding Symmetry Between shared_ptr and weak_ptr Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 18:11:53 +0800 Lines: 91 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <0b903f58-04a0-4f96-a953-2709feb4dd92@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\)) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2EF734A7-B721-4F45-84D9-40F7FBCBA603" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1421057536 29198 80.91.229.3 (12 Jan 2015 10:12:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:12:16 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCW25A7E3QCRB5N3Z2SQKGQEM6WF4SQ@isocpp.org Mon Jan 12 11:12:10 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-qg0-f71.google.com ([209.85.192.71]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YAbyh-0000cC-MM for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:12:07 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-qg0-f71.google.com with SMTP id z107sf57206074qgd.2 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 02:12:06 -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:content-type:message-id:mime-version :subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to: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=bf0VAxOhwbjJLTk9mmrniJ2wWmLxzmfp1KvDiDoi3rg=; b=clh54wj+U4VT0KogYZYp54mejCf2/EQHRmQN4LASaapxx4R2fiW/PPeLlyH8OF9MpS 7CtbkzeYt+kSOLjXcrYWrRyKYMgjQvQwgd0EJ+RF8rsYyVctQdzy1GGX5qPGrAS/OIY1 P6RzIpxKNTcKUY+5awEmQeer5IU1re4jdj4+kUTZFQYUAHEtaZ2kNHRWFoWSSmVPR9tk Cscjm4MtKp94cNxXfJ9XQWTZ3mb9R0My7NCdgfXszbYGzWJwMJg3IzLLzZnCZ1eIFKDd 6Kn0qNCRmp5UoDdGMBZ+uULmZ3jTBfuVi8vP9cBmRNeBGaTtbv6izKqJS4T2onMl8+0k P+BA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmDk8x/n5nnQgzYZoQks1PI/eS7kdVZRjlF7RJwUhGmr0XydkTp/C88iumgHKC8KU8Rdtct X-Received: by 10.236.23.74 with SMTP id u50mr21881704yhu.11.1421057526517; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 02:12:06 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.107.39.20 with SMTP id n20ls1670833ion.44.gmail; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 02:12:05 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.70.55.163 with SMTP id t3mr32404676pdp.8.1421057525773; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 02:12:05 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from mail-pa0-x22c.google.com (mail-pa0-x22c.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id pi6si22652668pdb.197.2015.01.12.02.12.05 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 12 Jan 2015 02:12:05 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of potswa@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c; Original-Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id et14so31206936pad.3 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 02:12:05 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.66.121.230 with SMTP id ln6mr42929270pab.82.1421057525178; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 02:12:05 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [172.20.10.2] ([121.54.44.92]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ah1sm14075237pad.16.2015.01.12.02.12.02 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 12 Jan 2015 02:12:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993) X-Original-Sender: potswa@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of potswa@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c as permitted sender) smtp.mail=potswa@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:15594 Archived-At: --Apple-Mail=_2EF734A7-B721-4F45-84D9-40F7FBCBA603 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > On 2015=E2=80=9301=E2=80=9312, at 4:54 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote: >=20 > On 12 January 2015 at 09:59, Arthur O'Dwyer w= rote: >> Does anyone know offhand if there currently exist any ref-qualified memb= er >> functions in the standard library? >=20 > Not yet, but std::experimental::optional includes some. When both lvalue-qualified and rvalue-qualified overloads exist, should it = even require specification? Splitting a member function in this way doesn= =E2=80=99t fall into any of the cases of [member.functions] =C2=A717.6.5.5/= 2, but overloading a standard const & parameter with an extension && parame= ter is permitted by the third bullet, and the effect is essentially the sam= e. Either [member.functions]/2.3 should be made more restrictive, or implement= ations are already allowed to assume the user is passing xvalue arguments c= orrectly, and to move from them even when the mandatory overloads fail to p= reserve the value category. In the latter case, rvalue-qualified overloads = should be added as a fourth bullet. In either case, it=E2=80=99s not really= Arthur=E2=80=99s problem to deal with. --=20 ---=20 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 e= mail 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-proposa= ls/. --Apple-Mail=_2EF734A7-B721-4F45-84D9-40F7FBCBA603 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
On 2015=E2=80=9301= =E2=80=9312, at 4:54 PM, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12 January 20= 15 at 09:59, Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer@gmail.com> wrote:
Does anyone know offhand if there currently e= xist any ref-qualified member
functions in the standard libra= ry?

Not yet, but std::experimenta= l::optional includes some.

When both lvalue-qualified and rvalue-qualified overloads exist, should i= t even require specification? Splitting a member function in this way doesn= =E2=80=99t fall into any of the cases of [member.functions] =C2= =A717.6.5.5/2, but overloading a standard const & parameter with an extension && parameter is permitted by the third bullet, a= nd the effect is essentially the same.

=
Either [member.functions]/2.3 should be made more rest= rictive, or implementations are already allowed to assume the user is passi= ng xvalue arguments correctly, and to move from them even when the mandator= y overloads fail to preserve the value category. In the latter case, rvalue= -qualified overloads should be added as a fourth bullet. In either case, it= =E2=80=99s not really Arthur=E2=80=99s problem to deal with.

--

---
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>.
--Apple-Mail=_2EF734A7-B721-4F45-84D9-40F7FBCBA603-- .