220 17712 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: John Yates 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 15:21:38 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 99 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <49c358a2-d19a-415f-a4fa-1ff67286a0ad@isocpp.org> <8ac58c5d-6542-43ff-b42c-b58cbf16be6d@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_3390_64170154.1430864499031" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1430864503 28030 80.91.229.3 (5 May 2015 22:21:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 22:21:43 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDW2ZOHC5EGRB44EUWVAKGQEVVWJWGA@isocpp.org Wed May 06 00:21:43 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-pd0-f199.google.com ([209.85.192.199]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YplDh-0001Z3-Pv for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 May 2015 00:21:42 +0200 Original-Received: by pdlj11 with SMTP id j11sf370291477pdl.0 for ; Tue, 05 May 2015 15:21:40 -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=SoXiNjd23fTHC0TG5dYcavMsRtuoyUoHMxBR9ujuCJE=; b=vvWUHN/WX4Y4q7Nv8bEV10sNb7B2gP/zQPyJ+FjKrYHolxEirLzc9htLA1HzzzTSWo mTLi0UVhx4hKMlnGuIYj2mHTKxZc27/IfIGCHiD8+I27bpFmaw1qzP157ZQHXx284WHN tmxg53U3dXApAaGTmyqbCaTSGZFRyRdVwN10vizyhBcbOGSH29YgrYBTfh5uykzOQzY2 7fmDOK3XNyqr3U1F0NybzZw8AxsZd3Is6fvNba91Iks7aIhjXvUc9ZLOLO1B8PuGGZCt 36Xcnltzbr0p2a+w+RbjKihsTONgCkpDSf2O+u4IgLB3MbtphGWHv/48oT72bqVev7Ot w9bg== 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=SoXiNjd23fTHC0TG5dYcavMsRtuoyUoHMxBR9ujuCJE=; b=dEiQP6pLtBPO1W4WiQcrka59Sv+tmbkw0veiB8IL+ygCTlFHl9e6AGsY0GrloXmeDU RrXUWgv0Mi/gfMaH3FL0QIi+6bmme2VQqBa/KUd70azh5iV22c1quNmeTarckSNSdqSv iGb170NE3xQtnrEQQBAKuHxszWeUiiYBlq3jUcqxNUWq7ryAp9sE+F2hM1yoMFUCzfuz qlLap9mrWKPGaighHgUNf4PRCuCRFQwmrMjs69aAu1kqPCKPPH0zIAkT/7Xd7MmcwZOf j54liFhYyi6q5dVhNy/iWeCpwuW4PGV2NsD37OGzp30ytbqIKfzUxTD0SsgPhWVvwMbB fleg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl5QvUu2T3hcvZjs2clTVDHBLyUUZJmmo1jGt4Zz78xYtD5Q0mMhtS9IwS6/FmHhGeX5oak X-Received: by 10.69.27.71 with SMTP id je7mr13116336pbd.2.1430864500598; Tue, 05 May 2015 15:21:40 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.98.4 with SMTP id n4ls3560230qge.71.gmail; Tue, 05 May 2015 15:21:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.98.175 with SMTP id o44mr344298qge.33.1430864499724; Tue, 05 May 2015 15:21:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8ac58c5d-6542-43ff-b42c-b58cbf16be6d@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: john.yates.sheets@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:17712 Archived-At: ------=_Part_3390_64170154.1430864499031 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_3391_470987484.1430864499032" ------=_Part_3391_470987484.1430864499032 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tuesday, May 5, 2015 at 4:57:32 PM UTC-4, Nicol Bolas wrote: > > 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. > There is nothing fundamentally wrong with virtual dispatch. The proposal early on admits that virtual dispatch can provide equivalent functionality. The issue is entirely one of efficiency, an eternal C++ objective. In the embedded systems I write more times than I care to count I have foregone use of virtual methods in favor of my own *ad hoc* lookup simply because I could not afford the cost of 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. > Point well taken. I have updated the proposal. > Lastly, don't call them "properties". It gives the wrong impression; > people might start thinking of C# properties. > Do you think that "class attribute" is a better, less misleading phrase? (I have tentatively updated the proposal replacing property with attribute.) -- --- 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_3391_470987484.1430864499032 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tuesday, May 5, 2015 at 4:57:32 PM UTC-4, Nicol Bolas w= rote:
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 met= hods, to standardize it would suggest that it's a good thing. Which by infe= rence implies that there's something wrong with virtual dispatch.
=

There is nothing fundamentally wrong= with virtual dispatch.  The proposal early on admits that virtual dis= patch can provide equivalent functionality.  The issue is entirely one= of efficiency, an eternal C++ objective.  In the embedded systems I w= rite more times than I care to count I have foregone use of virtual methods= in favor of my own ad hoc lookup simply because I could not afford = the cost of virtual dispatch.
 
Also, I'd say that derived clas= s versions of these static members must use the `override` keyword, = to make it clear that they're overriding a previously defined virtual, rath= er than creating a regular new static member.
<= div>
Point well taken.  I have updated the proposal.
 
Lastly, don't call them "properties". It gives the wrong impress= ion; people might start thinking of C# properties.

Do you think that "class attribute" is a better, le= ss misleading phrase?  (I have tentatively updated the proposal replac= ing property with attribute.) 

--

---
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_3391_470987484.1430864499032-- ------=_Part_3390_64170154.1430864499031-- .