220 16868 <5e2dc502-beff-4bbb-8dce-13fb3200415d@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alexander Nikolov Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Post-fix operator declaration change. Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:08:51 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 239 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <5e2dc502-beff-4bbb-8dce-13fb3200415d@isocpp.org> References: Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_453_1872207078.1425852531278" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1425852536 5582 80.91.229.3 (8 Mar 2015 22:08:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:08:56 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDBNZXHN2QPRB44Q6OTQKGQET5GOLIY@isocpp.org Sun Mar 08 23:08:55 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 1YUjNV-0006OI-K4 for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Sun, 08 Mar 2015 23:08:53 +0100 Original-Received: by qgfl89 with SMTP id l89sf86321320qgf.0 for ; Sun, 08 Mar 2015 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=i0uMPHThs4vUM3BbWFpzqcuTR7qkl81K6BI4Pj2aOLY=; b=UuI8EHebZ0YKY8rY+p9Oc+c42FxPc0fXrotn1C0Mu+nq4U5l0lR4mod3LFuDQnyvFo XDlWUmMVZeC0zHzvAB5eow/jNCTy86LTdZPpXpSI4/lv0mx3B6mvCFHRRZr02mbDRwGC iYp3eDGjj5crhxUCqZdqgoQX7/mV0+S0HvlSdhUiM/cdEtt8zewO+IiEI/zD0BcT/448 nVIMTI2c6Rd4oTXfQH/I/eNgREkxNrCmjX+oqYXDQcnhlRyxSruT0d9ZQMLWddZ6BdTa B8X/LPPoogO31v/a4UDB27NEjaojbJLJQCiDCoSjuYyg6phVg159CBCJEklGfpN86Fxl xU7A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkxjYheZKmpDjpugYSwq2a/83SoHvD+W5DC+thXhUIkrA8HSv0QHkVMr//GC0Tw3ExjAtQU X-Received: by 10.236.18.232 with SMTP id l68mr23809606yhl.16.1425852532198; Sun, 08 Mar 2015 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.83.116 with SMTP id i107ls1176856qgd.41.gmail; Sun, 08 Mar 2015 15:08:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.48.97 with SMTP id n88mr381514qga.35.1425852531682; Sun, 08 Mar 2015 15:08:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: sasho648@mail.bg 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:16868 Archived-At: ------=_Part_453_1872207078.1425852531278 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_454_1253964102.1425852531278" ------=_Part_454_1253964102.1425852531278 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =D0=BD=D0=B5=D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=BB=D1=8F, 8 =D0=BC=D0=B0=D1=80=D1=82 2015 =D0= =B3., 22:44:33 UTC+2, Brian Bi =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0: > > Before calling the decision "idiotic", you should read *The Design and=20 > Evolution of C++* and understand for yourself the factors under=20 > consideration at the time. > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Alexander Nikolov > wrote: > >> You mean that it is not worth fixing obvious idiotic decisions? >> >> If compatibility is you concern - you may note that it's lost gone and= =20 >> everybody knows that. >> >> =D0=BD=D0=B5=D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=BB=D1=8F, 8 =D0=BC=D0=B0=D1=80=D1=82 2015 = =D0=B3., 18:21:29 UTC+2, Matheus Izvekov =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0= =B0: >> >>> Ship has sailed too long ago? >>> >>> On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 12:54:41 PM UTC-3, Alexander Nikolov wrote: >>>> >>>> Wouldn't it be better instead of taking one dummy parameter=20 >>>> the user-defined function which implements the post-fix ++ or -- opera= tor=20 >>>> to have declaration similar to the form: >>>> >>>> operator ~--() >>>> >>>> I personally think that this is a lot more clear then: >>>> >>>> operator --(int); >>>> >>>> In which the only one function parameter of type 'int' will have a=20 >>>> dummy value of '0' when instanced. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> --=20 >> >> ---=20 >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group= s=20 >> "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send a= n=20 >> email to std-proposal...@isocpp.org . >> To post to this group, send email to std-pr...@isocpp.org . >> Visit this group at=20 >> http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. >> > > > > --=20 > *Brian Bi* > OK - I read it and as far as I can see he (Bjarne Stroustrup) considered=20 adding new keywords - 'prefix' and 'postfix' but didn't choice to make them= =20 because he 'received the usual howl of outrage from people who dislike new= =20 keywords.'. He also considered a variant in which the post-fix operator=20 functions would look like this: ++operator() --operator() Although he never mentioned why this was not implemented I can make a guess= =20 that the reason is some kind of interpreter ambiguity or possibly difficult= =20 implementation. However my idea was never mentioned - using this special combination of 2= =20 operators - ~ and -- which is neither harder to implement or creates any=20 kind of ambiguity. So I guess you are the one who haven't read this book or= =20 else I don't know what your arguments are. However the important part is if= =20 we can change this now. Even he says that: These explanations are needed because the mechanism is unique and therefore= =20 > a > bit of a wart.=20 > *Given a choice, I would probably have introduced the prefix andpostfix= =20 > keywords, but that didn't appear feasible at the time.* However, the only > really important point is that the mechanism works and can be understood= =20 > and used > by the few programmers. who really need it. --=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/. ------=_Part_454_1253964102.1425852531278 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=D0=BD=D0=B5=D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=BB=D1=8F, 8 =D0=BC=D0= =B0=D1=80=D1=82 2015 =D0=B3., 22:44:33 UTC+2, Brian Bi =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF= =D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0:
Before calling the decision "idiotic", you should read The Design = and Evolution of C++ and understand for yourself the factors under cons= ideration at the time.

On Sun, Mar 8= , 2015 at 9:38 AM, Alexander Nikolov <sash...@mail.bg> wrote:=
You mean that it is not= worth fixing obvious idiotic decisions?

If compati= bility is you concern - you may note that it's lost gone and everybody= knows that.

=D0=BD=D0=B5=D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=BB=D1=8F, 8 =D0=BC=D0=B0=D1= =80=D1=82 2015 =D0=B3., 18:21:29 UTC+2, Matheus Izvekov =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF= =D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0:
Ship has sailed too long ago?

On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at= 12:54:41 PM UTC-3, Alexander Nikolov wrote:
Wouldn't it be better instead of taking one dummy= parameter the user-defined function which implements the post-fix ++ = or -- operator to have declaration similar to the form:

operator ~--()

I personally think that this is a lot mo= re clear then:

=
operator = --(int<= /span>);

In which t= he only one function parameter of type 'int' will have a dummy value of '0'= when instanced.

What do you think?

--

---
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-proposal.= ...@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-pr...@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/= std-proposals/.



--
Brian Bi

OK= - I read it and as far as I can see he (Bjarne Stroustrup) considered addi= ng new keywords - 'prefix' and 'postfix' but didn't choice to make them bec= ause he 'received the usual howl of outrage from people who dislike new key= words.'. He also considered a variant in which the post-fix operator functi= ons would look like this:

++opera= tor()

= --operator()

Although he never mentioned why this was not implement= ed I can make a guess that the reason is some kind of interpreter ambiguity= or possibly difficult implementation.

However my = idea was never mentioned - using this special combination of 2 operators - = ~ and -- which is neither harder to implement or creates any kind of ambigu= ity. So I guess you are the one who haven't read this book or else I don't = know what your arguments are. However the important part is if we can chang= e this now.

Even he says that:

These explanations are needed because the mechanism= is unique and therefore a
bit of a wart. Given a choice, I would pro= bably have introduced the prefix and
postfix keywords, but that didn't a= ppear feasible at the time. However, the only
really important point= is that the mechanism works and can be understood and used
by the few p= rogrammers. who really need it.

--

---
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>.
------=_Part_454_1253964102.1425852531278-- ------=_Part_453_1872207078.1425852531278-- .