220 16066 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: mobi phil Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: const T* operator->() const Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 18:13:17 +0100 Lines: 72 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <56a7727d-9839-45c9-be72-a6ecb61f38c9@isocpp.org> <1932997.CYfMEhPeyI@tjmaciei-mobl4> <1696280.25OUg0jlQd@tjmaciei-mobl4> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0111b8fa6503a5050e6e89a5 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1423242801 28889 80.91.229.3 (6 Feb 2015 17:13:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 17:13:21 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDF3H34L74HRBLXM2OTAKGQECTITA5A@isocpp.org Fri Feb 06 18:13:20 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-pd0-f198.google.com ([209.85.192.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YJmT2-0008T5-IN for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 18:13:20 +0100 Original-Received: by pdjy10 with SMTP id y10sf78752722pdj.3 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:13:19 -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=GTLSkogJ1vtavrInWLx2joDi6jAiIARx7dTzRGX0Lho=; b=k7gBbmCiMZD3y+pOcSFHR60q+YWMclqnsx+KDvSAOe+oz5ZdF694E5v8nqbI6SZ03N UNCPy8noPNFSxj7X1dTncLkpAejBJimisiy/8VtA/LYYCdhBTrxfwBgun2SLhbkcMukk 60LAFGk2sbJgm4aoMqSenST0ZidXCoHyVpr425C3MZkOZOhV6wSK/BoYdM1V3abUnkwr 70TYlkURrfF8fvQ8PFoxV4yt1B2su+CDFD2QKc1WdKdi/EZUSTTtkBlypXn8U1TuWjk6 WCxy3kKyKXFX+/vK7A9fz8zfteMRFoYVNfaQjNxM0xbgg/vGiKliI1JarnhYSb01Hs7O O56w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlTbJiU92qDrmB+QHnCSx0vTZMf8nmw2TgJB/hIlTYTUb/iIgcnuEs5xROo8BVzOhZSONPx X-Received: by 10.70.35.177 with SMTP id i17mr3843655pdj.5.1423242799258; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:13:19 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.50.79.199 with SMTP id l7ls272097igx.8.canary; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:13:18 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.43.14.69 with SMTP id pp5mr13594661icb.33.1423242798294; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:13:18 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from mail-ig0-f179.google.com (mail-ig0-f179.google.com. [209.85.213.179]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lo10si1111318igb.24.2015.02.06.09.13.18 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:13:18 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: none (google.com: mobi@mobiphil.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=209.85.213.179; Original-Received: by mail-ig0-f179.google.com with SMTP id l13so4166965iga.0 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:13:18 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.176.196 with SMTP id ck4mr2968776igc.40.1423242797833; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:13:17 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.50.186.167 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 09:13:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1696280.25OUg0jlQd@tjmaciei-mobl4> X-Original-Sender: mobi@mobiphil.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=none (google.com: mobi@mobiphil.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) smtp.mail=mobi@mobiphil.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:16066 Archived-At: --089e0111b8fa6503a5050e6e89a5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > How is accessing a member different from calling a member function? Either > the > inner object knows it's under COW or it does. > sorry, but I fail to understand why you say would not be different. In which sense different, as for the trivial sense it is different. Once you assign to a member, for me it is obvious that a copy should be triggered. While a const method is a clear marking of intention that it will not change the object state, thus no copy should be triggered. > If it does, then the operator-> is irrelevant. The member functions > implement > the COW. > I am afraid you are thinking someway in this reflection context, which is not obvious... Can you be pls. more explicit. -- --- 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/. --089e0111b8fa6503a5050e6e89a5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
How is accessing a member different from calling= a member function? Either the
inner object knows it's under COW or it does.

=
sorry, but I fail to understand why you say would not be differe= nt. In which sense different, as for the trivial sense it is different. Onc= e you assign to a member, for me it is obvious that a copy should be trigge= red. While a const method is a clear marking of intention that it will not = change the object state, thus no copy should be triggered.
=C2=A0=
If it does, then the operator-> is = irrelevant. The member functions implement
the COW.

I am afraid you are thinking s= omeway in this reflection context, which is not obvious... Can you be pls. = more explicit.

--

---
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>.
--089e0111b8fa6503a5050e6e89a5-- .