220 17033 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: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:35:40 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 111 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <22101a9e-0e9a-4e70-b332-a1cd9ced7eb6@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_3925_109646012.1426527340641" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1426527353 15876 80.91.229.3 (16 Mar 2015 17:35:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 17:35:53 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDBNZXHN2QPRB3NITSUAKGQEOZQHQWQ@isocpp.org Mon Mar 16 18:35:52 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-pa0-f70.google.com ([209.85.220.70]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YXYvX-0007WO-6l for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 18:35:43 +0100 Original-Received: by pablj1 with SMTP id lj1sf281924508pab.3 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:35:41 -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=clk8a04LpTfP537VuPDqDq97rjwEwD5jRmAc3ijs2Xc=; b=mAhQpH2Uq8vwrhK+lijoOD7cZSuEMJCwks3dD7Txr1YBGWkkBdGy+o3MDlLjo37jjK Ct9ColL6cIg3fC+9rIaC9ZedZwr1mtZ/a+zs2pcVY6MxStagew7vmtPq9ISPYACuL1fI tQ3VuS1zGhyOhnaOhuCHITzoGbxy1UvjKWt5f/2TeHAWzqLAvQXBWKudlQj5m6ip8Jmp PVMf6m2sxxbqAS5WLUzMVkjxgho8CjutfptUb5qUk0+0TxLCjfkyTjPEOOXg6H62lBLs wDxGeE+gxOi97iQ725YW4aweEmAXxstHavucsqAO0tN507BKZaga3RFfsWyD+fgUfgfJ 9sAA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm8D63G+2bNWDh8GTJCEQ/BHKdAwYPmlQNeH13Xh2MuNlyCNTYzjasrPQseYg5eKGHt54sN X-Received: by 10.66.102.66 with SMTP id fm2mr66467656pab.4.1426527341871; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:35:41 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.51.82 with SMTP id t76ls2824840qga.26.gmail; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:35:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.18.213 with SMTP id 79mr950061qgf.38.1426527341307; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:35:41 -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:17033 Archived-At: ------=_Part_3925_109646012.1426527340641 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_3926_279554558.1426527340641" ------=_Part_3926_279554558.1426527340641 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I already pointed out the problem which is hardly understanding of existing= =20 code and also hardly writing new one without taking time to understand this= =20 odd construct. Can you please point out the reasons why 'dropping support for the current= =20 way to define these operators is unacceptable'? I already pointed out mine= =20 for why not. I'll be very happy if someone include this propose for syntax change=20 alongside fixes for other similar odd constructs. Because I just don't have= =20 time for writing such things. =D0=BF=D0=BE=D0=BD=D0=B5=D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=BB=D0=BD=D0=B8=D0=BA, 16 =D0=BC=D0= =B0=D1=80=D1=82 2015 =D0=B3., 17:27:37 UTC+2, Ville Voutilainen =D0=BD=D0= =B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0: > > On 16 March 2015 at 17:21, Alexander Nikolov > wrote:=20 > > +1.=20 > >=20 > > Except supporting old construct.=20 > > Dropping support for the current way to define these operators is=20 > unacceptable.=20 > That also means that the new syntax would actually need to be a compellin= g=20 > fix=20 > for a real problem, which is not the case. I have no doubt this proposal= =20 > will=20 > be rejected by the committee. It's a microscopic fix looking for an=20 > actual problem.=20 > --=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_3926_279554558.1426527340641 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I already pointed out the problem which is hardly understa= nding of existing code and also hardly writing new one without taking time = to understand this odd construct.

Can you please point o= ut the reasons why 'dropping support for the current way to define these op= erators is unacceptable'? I already pointed out mine for why not.

I'll be very happy if someone include this propose for synt= ax change alongside fixes for other similar odd constructs. Because I just = don't have time for writing such things.

=D0=BF=D0=BE=D0=BD= =D0=B5=D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=BB=D0=BD=D0=B8=D0=BA, 16 =D0=BC=D0=B0=D1=80=D1=82 201= 5 =D0=B3., 17:27:37 UTC+2, Ville Voutilainen =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81= =D0=B0:
On 16 March 2015 at 17:= 21, Alexander Nikolov <sash...@mail.bg> wrote:
> +1.
>
> Except supporting old construct.

Dropping support for the current way to define these operators is unacc= eptable.
That also means that the new syntax would actually need to be a compell= ing fix
for a real problem, which is not the case. I have no doubt this proposa= l will
be rejected by the committee. It's a microscopic fix looking for an
actual problem.

--

---
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_3926_279554558.1426527340641-- ------=_Part_3925_109646012.1426527340641-- .