220 17709 <8ac58c5d-6542-43ff-b42c-b58cbf16be6d@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nicol Bolas Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?=5Bstd=2Dproposals=5D_Re=3A_Proposal=3A_Class_static_=E2=80=9Cproper?= =?UTF-8?Q?ty=E2=80=9D_constants_in_vtables?= Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 13:57:32 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 89 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <8ac58c5d-6542-43ff-b42c-b58cbf16be6d@isocpp.org> References: <49c358a2-d19a-415f-a4fa-1ff67286a0ad@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_1032_2023941338.1430859452314" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1430859456 12523 80.91.229.3 (5 May 2015 20:57:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 20:57:36 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCEKFTV6ZUMBBPO5USVAKGQEJORGJZA@isocpp.org Tue May 05 22:57:36 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-qc0-f197.google.com ([209.85.216.197]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YpjuI-0003Fw-Je for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 May 2015 22:57:35 +0200 Original-Received: by qcbmu5 with SMTP id mu5sf93310244qcb.0 for ; Tue, 05 May 2015 13:57:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=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=2hhO0h4ejr3f33LQBDXWoDgRwcssiBCT1/ug+Dokths=; b=Cq1fGwHvrUFqbygXA2JxQcnKyYnXvsqQvhy9UewKLKJbRW7u3ziG3fypW+tc5ZlOjw jl7YEfpyaZAzKp7hcyY4fCro3mqEzPgwPs5E13TT688CRHxIVu1z6b/jysd17pfNxBDV n7YLkjUf/cYbmieL7og46lEzK/nq1lo5z+tWurCQo225MdVluAKh0ZEAWrybZzryfxgt V7K7SMb8N8qrhF6swNjjkgk2t2YHaM45K4tFM6LNHmO9/6qkkkzwDyPP7GY0hYBQAYnK vcSByd7NGJAd6YxTmnATgP1axnrIl32VzuFiOLRFv3ejvUZL3TZdXkb2FaXjwpWNCXF7 Ugqg== 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=2hhO0h4ejr3f33LQBDXWoDgRwcssiBCT1/ug+Dokths=; b=PlpqnpY3L9mzrDibKmDm1GNn3SStuxXB8G6dGXqPZbShpgXyQLJyWyKzHefsdfieH+ cAj4UreNzAWZo2ihAcJ3Fj+nWh1b2PiTJ5hAg9bS/PgPpzJ1OQBp9Fmdf6ujQ7W6H7be tePgtdZY2xxSjxWn/Q4NPmOFYJKyYGeo9jjq9oUT5rRSljAIcg/puh8On7KHbQHVoPQk t1TXonskqSstq9qvYNMldQbjwv5l336Zo/2b9VbB9Z26hkkooXGaOTcVNsEsgxdJyCe7 iJTJS72UXDnQZcTYdBxhcsNR57Ru9UsHzACdk0SJYOHbNpW6OWaWaWuoqtS4XSO/dCx1 mr0Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkA+bYPG2UMUwH1No4VBdqFFPQfcDjM6i36Df5ovUHBRgWzdX2WWwr6Cw56izBr+qR9fbw1 X-Received: by 10.236.45.98 with SMTP id o62mr43657696yhb.42.1430859453654; Tue, 05 May 2015 13:57:33 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.86.231 with SMTP id p94ls3273329qgd.35.gmail; Tue, 05 May 2015 13:57:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.31.196 with SMTP id f62mr335959qgf.30.1430859453036; Tue, 05 May 2015 13:57:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <49c358a2-d19a-415f-a4fa-1ff67286a0ad@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: jmckesson@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:17709 Archived-At: ------=_Part_1032_2023941338.1430859452314 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1033_241099286.1430859452314" ------=_Part_1033_241099286.1430859452314 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tuesday, May 5, 2015 at 12:21:24 PM UTC-4, John Yates wrote: > > I have been writing embedded systems in C++ for nearly 20 years. > Repeatedly I have encountered a desire to access class properties more > cheaply that via a call to a virtual method. This seems (at least to me) a > very natural extension of C++ storage specifiers and the semantics of > virtual name lookup. I have finally gotten around to writing a brief > proposal > . > Very curious what other may think. > My concern with this proposal is that it formalizes and promotes the use of ad-hoc methods of OOP. While it is true that many people want to use such methods, to standardize it would suggest that it's a good thing. Which by inference implies that there's something wrong with virtual dispatch. Also, I'd say that derived class versions of these static members *must* use the `override` keyword, to make it clear that they're overriding a previously defined virtual, rather than creating a regular new static member. Lastly, don't call them "properties". It gives the wrong impression; people might start thinking of C# properties. -- --- 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/. ------=_Part_1033_241099286.1430859452314 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tuesday, May 5, 2015 at 12:21:24 PM UTC-4, John Yates w= rote:
I have been writing em= bedded systems in C++ for nearly 20 years.  Repeatedly I have encounte= red a desire to access class properties more cheaply that via a call to a v= irtual method.  This seems (at least to me) a very natural extension o= f C++ storage specifiers and the semantics of virtual name lookup.  I = have finally  gotten around to writing a brief proposal.  Very curious what other may= think.

My concern with this proposal= is that it formalizes and promotes the use of ad-hoc methods of OOP. While= it is true that many people want to use such methods, to standardize it wo= uld suggest that it's a good thing. Which by inference implies that there's= something wrong with virtual dispatch.

Also, I'd say that derived c= lass versions of these static members must use the `override` keywor= d, to make it clear that they're overriding a previously defined virtual, r= ather than creating a regular new static member.

Lastly, don't call = them "properties". It gives the wrong impression; people might start thinki= ng of C# properties.

--

---
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_1033_241099286.1430859452314-- ------=_Part_1032_2023941338.1430859452314-- .