220 17046 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: Post-fix operator declaration change. Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:03:46 -0400 Lines: 218 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <22101a9e-0e9a-4e70-b332-a1cd9ced7eb6@isocpp.org> <8e0337ea-ec51-464e-b45d-06d1b4a91839@isocpp.org> <69e71162-a69d-41a8-b48c-d6eef8a46208@isocpp.org> <78c5c7c6-2a1c-4dac-aabd-916685cfc48a@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cc7e0dd814205117b987f X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1426597450 29468 80.91.229.3 (17 Mar 2015 13:04:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:04:10 +0000 (UTC) To: "std-proposals@isocpp.org" Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDIIVO6GQULBBM6MUCUAKGQETOVDINQ@isocpp.org Tue Mar 17 14:03:57 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-pd0-f200.google.com ([209.85.192.200]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YXr9x-0004nj-AE for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:03:49 +0100 Original-Received: by pdev10 with SMTP id v10sf12141958pde.0 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 06:03:47 -0700 (PDT) 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=s0gm5OAi44RCSlLxx1kYdrWZrkVknPUkkWg4GMfNR3A=; b=H8T7/O80UWE6kpwOMiK85vdGwrt2PeEh58m27qnr77SKCnHED7V7ZeO4KQEHeFfS3A H416kkYKkbxE3CjVNVga0vI0sbGZtJHmP/C5GkziAZ2kC3oM+EAWJZjnFjIeg4PzhqIq CQ856nZidKiB+V1gGjuGIynMji/pS9+XyltExbM8UddvuEyldi344ExPC5wsfrumWCTs bJXV0kHw7chK7QMiBnpUqfxixl4XVfctn+ZkOZbn98TR7QgP246MPMueyHPAlIBROfW3 L+joDxgSyt4II9cAme5wpzTDg6+WPc5VoD+3VH8+kSGnfe5p0KFzu11ZpBBC7DKZNPrM CAtw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlNFMVAU0R7UQLgSD2+52usskdZJ7cVk3+hXmsHhEteqob0eSjqIkruAJChu/cplILhHMMc X-Received: by 10.66.65.165 with SMTP id y5mr67378056pas.43.1426597427854; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 06:03:47 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.182.226.135 with SMTP id rs7ls35791obc.73.gmail; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 06:03:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.128.199 with SMTP id nq7mr29869879obb.47.1426597427006; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 06:03:47 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-ob0-x231.google.com (mail-ob0-x231.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4003:c01::231]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d7si7386569oib.92.2015.03.17.06.03.46 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Mar 2015 06:03:46 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of dribeas@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c01::231; Original-Received: by obfv9 with SMTP id v9so6337666obf.2 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 06:03:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.202.180.87 with SMTP id d84mr36356398oif.0.1426597426854; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 06:03:46 -0700 (PDT) Original-Sender: dribeas@gmail.com Original-Received: by 10.202.85.201 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 06:03:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <78c5c7c6-2a1c-4dac-aabd-916685cfc48a@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:f8b0:4003:c01::231 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:17046 Archived-At: --001a113cc7e0dd814205117b987f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Additionally, in the grand scheme of things I expect a C++ developer to be able to switch from one standard to another, from a legacy project to the newest green fields task with the newest (even experimental) compiler. If the concern is that the old construct is *hard*, the alternative is having to learn the same *hard* construct and a different one that might be simpler. This is not _overall_ simplifying the language but making it more complex. If this was adopted, I would have to expect my developers to understand 'operator++(int)' and whatever form fo 'operator++(postfix)', together with the understanding that they have to be mutually exclusive. I value simplicity, there's a few places where I would love a simpler language, but I don't see how this would simplify anything for users. And by the way, I am one of those that never knows how to overload prefix/postfix, I've never been bothered to learn the detail I have the standard, books and google to solve that for me. I don't find that particularly hard. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=postfix+operator+overloading+c%2B%2B David On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Nicol Bolas wrote: > > > On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 1:59:55 PM UTC-4, Alexander Marinov wrote: >> >> Also perhaps this small change for itself will be not anything important >> to consider but if someone includes in a big proposal with fix for all >> other odd constructs it will be far more significant. >> >> >> @Nicol Bolas >> >> Isn't this modern C++ or what? People which are using old code-bases will >> have a lot of options. They'll either have to: >> >> >> 1. Continue compiling against older C++ standards. >> >> Python 3.x. How many Python-based projects, big, *important* ones have > completely rejected it? And why was that? Oh right, lack of backwards > compatibility in key areas. > > Let's make this clear: splintering the C++ community, even if this were > not something incredibly trivial, *is not an option*. That's what we call > a "non-starter". > >> >> 1. Use automated-tools converting their codes into newer C++ >> standards. >> >> Which can break your code. Also, such tools have to be written and > maintained by someone. > >> >> 1. Convert their code by themselves. >> >> Which serves no genuine purpose, since the new code does the exact same > thing as the old. In short: you're wasting time. > >> >> 1. Convert code partially and compile different files against >> different C++ standard versions. >> >> That's just splintering your codebase within a project. Also, it seems > rather difficult to pull off, since any code that includes a header using > the old one will have to be compiled under the old rules. > > >> In every case this is a big choice. Otherwise soon we'll have very >> unreadable mess with one hundred new keywords and standard libraries which >> should 'patch' older code. >> Understanding code then will be a night-mare - times harder then if we >> just change come existing constructs. >> > > We all would like a nice, cleaner looking language, with all the bad ways > cleaned out. I would have loved it if 'typedef' went the way of the Dodo in > C++11 (since we have 'using' aliases that are a functional superset). But > it's not going to happen. So there's no point in asking for it. It just > wastes time. > > -- > > --- > 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/. --001a113cc7e0dd814205117b987f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Additionally, in the grand scheme of things I expect a C++= developer to be able to switch from one standard to another, from a legacy= project to the newest green fields task with the newest (even experimental= ) compiler.=C2=A0 If the concern is that the old construct is *hard*, the a= lternative is having to learn the same *hard* construct and a different one= that might be simpler.=C2=A0 This is not _overall_ simplifying the languag= e but making it more complex.=C2=A0 If this was adopted, I would have to ex= pect my developers to understand 'operator++(int)' and whatever for= m fo 'operator++(postfix)', together with the understanding that th= ey have to be mutually exclusive.

I value simplicity, there's a = few places where I would love a simpler language, but I don't see how t= his would simplify anything for users.=C2=A0 And by the way, I am one of th= ose that never knows how to overload prefix/postfix, I've never been bo= thered to learn the detail I have the standard, books and google to solve t= hat for me.=C2=A0 I don't find that particularly hard.

http://lmg= tfy.com/?q=3Dpostfix+operator+overloading+c%2B%2B

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 = David

On Mon= , Mar 16, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Nicol Bolas <jmckesson@gmail.com> wrote:


On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 1:59:55 PM UTC-4, Alexander Marinov= wrote:
Also perhap= s this small change for itself will be not anything important to consider b= ut if someone includes in a big proposal with fix for all other odd constru= cts it will be far more significant.


@Nicol Bolas=C2=A0

Isn't = this modern C++ or what? People which are using old code-bases will have a = lot of options. They'll either have to:

  1. Continue compiling against old= er C++ standards.
Pyth= on 3.x. How many Python-based projects, big, important ones have com= pletely rejected it? And why was that? Oh right, lack of backwards compatib= ility in key areas.

Let's make this clear: splintering the C++ c= ommunity, even if this were not something incredibly trivial, is not an = option. That's what we call a "non-starter".
  1. Use automate= d-tools converting their codes into newer C++ standards.
Which can break your code. Also, such to= ols have to be written and maintained by someone.
  1. Convert their code by the= mselves.
Which serves = no genuine purpose, since the new code does the exact same thing as the old= .. In short: you're wasting time.
  1. Convert code partially and compile di= fferent files against different C++ standard versions.
That's just splintering your codebase = within a project. Also, it seems rather difficult to pull off, since any co= de that includes a header using the old one will have to be compiled under = the old rules.
=C2=A0
I= n every case this is a big choice. Otherwise soon we'll have very unrea= dable mess with one hundred new keywords and standard libraries which shoul= d 'patch' older code.
Understanding code then will be a night-ma= re - times harder then if we just change come existing constructs.

We all would like a nice, clea= ner looking language, with all the bad ways cleaned out. I would have loved= it if 'typedef' went the way of the Dodo in C++11 (since we have &= #39;using' aliases that are a functional superset). But it's not go= ing to happen. So there's no point in asking for it. It just wastes tim= e.

--

---
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>.
--001a113cc7e0dd814205117b987f-- .