220 19743 <2671d071-9935-41fe-91d5-94423309267a@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Germ=C3=A1n_Diago?= Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: constexpr in the era of modules. Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 20:54:12 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 75 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <2671d071-9935-41fe-91d5-94423309267a@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_315_801578824.1439178852096" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1439178863 6864 80.91.229.3 (10 Aug 2015 03:54:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 03:54:23 +0000 (UTC) To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDC2VXM4YYDRBZOAUCXAKGQEUM74KWA@isocpp.org Mon Aug 10 05:54:15 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-pd0-f197.google.com ([209.85.192.197]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZOeAB-0003ct-4w for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 05:54:15 +0200 Original-Received: by pdbpo3 with SMTP id po3sf328945595pdb.1 for ; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 20:54:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:subject:mime-version:content-type :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=7p5HNEMqrOcGa/z7zuUPjbS5d7L+d+oyKyio3oeSpWM=; b=jCiggCOlbrOSZw9VPMobxh4ZCdP1zIcNVy6sANiKrRQby6BxsewLq9WnCyLB8ZVUF7 ixoFFsJkZxk4XASAAb8En9ERddudErjDidN6TQa5XPWCcSgiqP9e/YbzteszXKab1k1L usY9dv2fy6CTmivO0Rsc1r7eFyTZ8/p6CIMgrOeGkPiGmIf/+7xCmyn3thANVvDl1vnY v0ZmZHVkGJA5ZmfEm/PN9JplZ5uT/TVbDKRhzYB9ajE1E5i4nqUx52JLpVPpnebjYpDf /U2c12UvJD0iTwar6ihE/4kX3PhK24xryEedk5+fiqkbnQqHiI+aRIAnaA7uhfxtDRyD 15fw== 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:subject:mime-version :content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=7p5HNEMqrOcGa/z7zuUPjbS5d7L+d+oyKyio3oeSpWM=; b=AMnkrsTQPBAULqVPPo9kzNXNzZFE78WwwWA6botItAbpUNYsXsheJQnnW8099Lozpe tB7R9/qZRPeD9LQwG6IkoTkKeoBhp3dyvD8ny7XP3t/T/J+gbQNcC4De1r8Pm5gcUERn ospY7CW9mzibYrNeDa1y/wgPs2uSnf03mIPz6Q7HQzkIZ8QW/cIsgnaqzuaBHAcfa83I j5W//Sy/6I9VkoNjIe3GBiWn6enL31zMObDGqeSLFpPBL8yDL9Y2ef8CeFgJDj2FRMNw nfF1xfW0rCRBJwljj88yjiyGvx4r+G74NjjBRDA2QT0VZXH1xsye7u+rsyBFxx3GStYw GRyg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnbnKumfD3KUJBN9GkfZ8YGcwUQdq8xpw0fIFSU/azkF+aMF6eGKZytyKRbrOqtJk86vg8k X-Received: by 10.68.206.102 with SMTP id ln6mr17989286pbc.13.1439178854030; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 20:54:14 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.107.3.22 with SMTP id 22ls2012472iod.21.gmail; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 20:54:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.73.138 with SMTP id l10mr106356igv.0.1439178853262; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 20:54:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Sender: germandiago@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: std-proposals@isocpp.org 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:19743 Archived-At: ------=_Part_315_801578824.1439178852096 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_316_910157672.1439178852096" ------=_Part_316_910157672.1439178852096 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hello everyone, I still have some concerns about constexpr functions that I think I raised before. The goal of this post is to make people think if a solution would be possible, why it would or would not be possible. My questions are: I keep looking at the D language and its compile-time function execution. It needs to request the compile-time calculation only at call site (not at declaration site): 1.- In the era of modules, can we get away with constexpr in function declarations in some way, or we will still need them forever? Annotating everything with constexpr is really noisy: but constexpr calculation can be useful in any context, at any time. Regards -- --- 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_316_910157672.1439178852096 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello everyone,

I still have some concerns about co= nstexpr functions that I think I raised before.

The goal of this pos= t is to make people think if a solution would be possible, why it would or = would not be possible.

My questions are:



I keep looki= ng at the D language and its compile-time function execution. It needs to r= equest the compile-time calculation
only at call site (not at declaratio= n site):

1.- In the era of modules, can we get away with constexpr i= n function declarations in some way, or we will still need them
forever?=

Annotating everything with constexpr is really noisy: but constexpr= calculation can be useful in any context, at any time.

Regards
<= /div>

--

---
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_316_910157672.1439178852096-- ------=_Part_315_801578824.1439178852096-- .