220 16077 <3423283.QTSUnJKSPh@tjmaciei-mobl4> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thiago Macieira Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: const T* operator->() const Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 18:30:28 -0800 Lines: 38 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <3423283.QTSUnJKSPh@tjmaciei-mobl4> References: <56a7727d-9839-45c9-be72-a6ecb61f38c9@isocpp.org> <79072019.ttkhiFK88n@tjmaciei-mobl4> 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 1423276235 14168 80.91.229.3 (7 Feb 2015 02:30:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 02:30:35 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCB4TK757YBRBSPR2WTAKGQEYGVZK4I@isocpp.org Sat Feb 07 03:30:35 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-wi0-f198.google.com ([209.85.212.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YJvAJ-0004Fu-1j for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 03:30:35 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-wi0-f198.google.com with SMTP id h11sf3882638wiw.1 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 18:30:34 -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:to:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version: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=6ep0fNVW1+OQBroj9KXBJSSHMGwIfqusP4l2irboM5A=; b=ODzRE7WbHecd3zr3v50RpjiXBWc7dSNqQx+VeRBtjZeDo0N5f3txytdNz5UFRpBc0U Zfg7+JkjPN/C5PAuOUJMx0v8DVT7XBCuxLDL0grXdgwyE8R53TWIbXPHGxCXyCX6wvRD jh/wDbp7rUHuLkAyNcZp1MFk5kpl9Mew+hAc17VAbj/mxIceNyAGBQCgtvvyHWfSO2rE MfOyTFNgHpNWD9JvohCvw1kllf/zK7FoE5jaOialqt42vG/hLQBdQqo/I9FW/+hHAYNz Tf+rjQ6OmxDIBTRzeAz4CCIJVIMMWHR91WZO8obcVr0chbcBxXJ2T3mglZs24KxS4gAJ oSaQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm/Zn2w6hUEougi6UEBIqvbrYSE935uQEIIMW54ugWuU8rA7DEKLGyqxa9DM3ITIxvxON8d X-Received: by 10.180.109.132 with SMTP id hs4mr632556wib.1.1423276234528; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 18:30:34 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.180.106.9 with SMTP id gq9ls241744wib.23.canary; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 18:30:33 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.184.132 with SMTP id eu4mr9221393wic.49.1423276233282; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 18:30:33 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from gondolin.macieira.info (gondolin.macieira.info. [78.47.120.188]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id i4si5164441wic.32.2015.02.06.18.30.33 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 18:30:33 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of thiago@macieira.org designates 78.47.120.188 as permitted sender) client-ip=78.47.120.188; Original-Received: from tjmaciei-mobl4.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2601:7:1c80:5d2:5e51:4fff:fe7c:49f8]) by gondolin.macieira.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 65B0711B0F6 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 18:30:32 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: KMail/4.14.4 (Linux/3.11.10-25-desktop; KDE/4.14.4; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: thiago@macieira.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of thiago@macieira.org designates 78.47.120.188 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=thiago@macieira.org 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:16077 Archived-At: On Saturday 07 February 2015 01:23:25 mobi phil wrote: > while Matthew Woehlke for instance correctly understood my point, you still > fail to see that I correctly understand how the compiler interprets the > story. It was just an observation that if the compiler would be able to > reason in the context of the "->" operator (or for the sake of avoiding > confusion lets call it "$#A#$$!" operator ) about the right side, > constructs that I mentioned would be possible. Unfortunately there are not > so many operators available, and the language is not ready to allow the > implementation of such a construct. While you fail to see this and you are > still thinking in terms of current implementation of the "->" operator, you > conclusion of too "little benefit" is so far without any support. If you > did not understand the problem fully please refrain to draw the conclusion > that it adds too little benefit. At the end of the day I would not care if > this would be o function, what i care is to have the mechanism to reason > about the type of member methods/functions. As Ville Voutilainen mentioned, > probably such a story would be possible to implement using the proposed > reflection framework, or with my yet another non-sense proposal about > "generalized templates" or "compile time C++". My point is that even if there were an operator that did what you proposed, it would IMHO be of little value. There would be more value if the constness or not could be determined by further operations down the line. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint: E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358 -- --- 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/. .