220 16327 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?David_Rodr=C3=ADguez_Ibeas?= Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Pointers to members of unknown class Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:47:40 -0500 Lines: 95 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <9b03a820-0ac5-4931-9825-b2fc9ef893f9@isocpp.org> <71ada2c1-620f-4b55-b6fc-630711b0b032@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11351944e694c6050f49c8ca X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1424184463 19044 80.91.229.3 (17 Feb 2015 14:47:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:47:43 +0000 (UTC) To: "std-proposals@isocpp.org" Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDIIVO6GQULBBDNJRWTQKGQEQFXQPNQ@isocpp.org Tue Feb 17 15:47:43 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-qg0-f69.google.com ([209.85.192.69]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YNjR9-0000UD-2i for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:47:43 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-qg0-f69.google.com with SMTP id h3sf113571611qgf.0 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 06:47:42 -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:sender: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=xw3DfZz7oumMIpO3u5e+9KBVdMj0zuZOc2bRvoRo30Y=; b=bNfPLO1MwGcPYOxdnZHrHds/R60LwzKJA+NmYUsmPEIyEfrhWB13f7xKQrWwpcqGeN 6uWWtysk68rSriI+G/K2i+TKplRESoXzAQsHi2/Mrg4nTIUh3KNBuos8e+E9UkA4aml3 BH8XD0UGsZ9UfViwa/UNzVZ6dng9ViwGGjsh8tgQjMcerVgeuIXcjCn/oVXxH7iq7Quw GouCmMsXPuRxNDg4yALNpqD481SUlON2T2cbSCejyy0xVek3nYX8sMJrqlLsjMUOJXDM 1VNU3e0BmLpbBRENIuK9q8dH0ARxCDAx+oSWx0ifL3mcn/dIAzppvWJHVUpGUxMxCcG6 I+ow== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkSuKuijWSk8KOwYdndEOVi5qo4or5cQIsQy0uLA6kl3UdR/X1MulSXadHakcciVjRN1MJf X-Received: by 10.236.140.199 with SMTP id e47mr24430210yhj.50.1424184462156; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 06:47:42 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.82.83 with SMTP id g77ls2579748qgd.99.gmail; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 06:47:41 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.106.228 with SMTP id e91mr2532032qgf.19.1424184461370; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 06:47:41 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from mail-qc0-x232.google.com (mail-qc0-x232.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400d:c01::232]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n1si9536589qha.105.2015.02.17.06.47.41 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Feb 2015 06:47:41 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of dribeas@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c01::232 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c01::232; Original-Received: by mail-qc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id p6so28968771qcv.9 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 06:47:41 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.49.5 with SMTP id p5mr224405qga.15.1424184461135; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 06:47:41 -0800 (PST) Original-Sender: dribeas@gmail.com Original-Received: by 10.140.104.207 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 06:47:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <71ada2c1-620f-4b55-b6fc-630711b0b032@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: dibeas@ieee.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of dribeas@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c01::232 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=dribeas@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@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:16327 Archived-At: --001a11351944e694c6050f49c8ca Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Yes... I am not to fond of the almost-always-auto recommendations. Also, I'd really like the language to change and make '&derived::member' a 'T derived::*', as this is really the source of pain and confusion --the code as read by the user differs from what the compiler processes. If that was to be fixed, it would be one less source of confusion (and would simplify other parts of the language), but that is a different discussion... David On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Markus Grech wrote: > I like your idea about std::memptr_buffer, not sure why I haven't thought > of that before. But I do not see how it improves safety at all, most people > would just put 'auto' there and get a base::* silently. > > -- > > --- > 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/. > -- --- 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/. --001a11351944e694c6050f49c8ca Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes... I am not to fond of the almost-always-auto recommen= dations.=C2=A0 Also, I'd really like the language to change and make &#= 39;&derived::member' a 'T derived::*', as this is really th= e source of pain and confusion --the code as read by the user differs from = what the compiler processes.=C2=A0 If that was to be fixed, it would be one= less source of confusion (and would simplify other parts of the language),= but that is a different discussion...

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 David

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 = at 9:23 AM, Markus Grech <markus.grech@gmail.com> wrote= :
I like your idea about= std::memptr_buffer, not sure why I haven't thought of that before. But= I do not see how it improves safety at all, most people would just put = 9;auto' there and get a base::* silently.

--

---
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-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/gro= up/std-proposals/.

--

---
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>.
--001a11351944e694c6050f49c8ca-- .