220 20554 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Krauss Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Draft D0065: Movable initializer lists, rev. 2 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 17:26:49 +0800 Lines: 90 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <87343e65-eecd-4b96-86b7-a883aa7f9d1d@isocpp.org> <6fb8e5c2-65a8-4a31-a8f0-7ca85b9b7247@isocpp.org> <0B1AA60B-3BEF-4C04-BB26-3AC839FE73AB@gmail.com> <3e38b15f-10a7-41e1-9652-338f94ac3ab9@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B59B63BC-07F2-464C-A36E-E121F8591FB6" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1442827617 25303 80.91.229.3 (21 Sep 2015 09:26:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:26:57 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCW25A7E3QCRBXU276XQKGQEJP7ELYA@isocpp.org Mon Sep 21 11:26:57 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-pa0-f71.google.com ([209.85.220.71]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZdxNA-0002XF-Lt for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 11:26:56 +0200 Original-Received: by pacgz1 with SMTP id gz1sf122069781pac.0 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 02:26:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-type:message-id:mime-version :subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=QvLi4YEn+McSN98tFy3Xf/Ee6GuUkpKys/nopQg0GRo=; b=H1tqn/XNDUrFjljAhHaCYPEJk6GhPXFbPPVgdQxJFG7Wx0Y6NXpPTRCNtGSzLkryM1 zR+bI3dJZDR2nKT9fOm2xKY0jSSBqGcL4GiDRBLd1lxIng1wuOPpVtYerV7jCsydVc35 3RsombXr7g9KJEvn+tELd/H9k6h0du/aB8BtQEmKjBxxwZyBQgbsFSlCIzkJ5c5/PbyO rJCDKyixIiP3UrkTYWBmVgSu40jeylLVWUL6vvtDxJRtwh9/3kds2fTvglgbTc+s/u28 nj/gYxajqH7Vla4C7FWIce8xTXLtIgYhuegwKEbueCBRewqOCw0ahcGMw+F31M7kDfuJ JeWg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlSuj8wB5HKDucRpTZDNo8LslFn5IR2Jdx6BxLwZcJ1GWfYpihfCvhfZCiwo47ZK8clXD0E X-Received: by 10.66.142.136 with SMTP id rw8mr16295743pab.7.1442827615317; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 02:26:55 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.50.28.48 with SMTP id y16ls569665igg.3.gmail; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 02:26:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.139.133 with SMTP id qy5mr23889776pab.44.1442827614277; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 02:26:54 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-pa0-x22b.google.com (mail-pa0-x22b.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dn2si36360250pbb.210.2015.09.21.02.26.54 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 21 Sep 2015 02:26:54 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of potswa@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b; Original-Received: by pacfv12 with SMTP id fv12so114117522pac.2 for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 02:26:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.102.106 with SMTP id fn10mr18045891pab.156.1442827613677; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 02:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [172.20.10.2] ([121.54.44.94]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id lc9sm23306113pbc.52.2015.09.21.02.26.52 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 21 Sep 2015 02:26:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3e38b15f-10a7-41e1-9652-338f94ac3ab9@isocpp.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) X-Original-Sender: potswa@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of potswa@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=potswa@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=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:20554 Archived-At: --Apple-Mail=_B59B63BC-07F2-464C-A36E-E121F8591FB6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > On 2015=E2=80=9309=E2=80=9321, at 4:54 PM, Tomasz w= rote: >=20 > And we can avoid repeating the same design that lead to the above desing = for the newly introduced classes. If I check the class interface and you wi= ll found that it is move constructible, I would expect that I will be able = to pass it to function by value (ok) and return it from the function, also = by value (eliminated in your design for valid reasons). The design that pro= vide move constructor, but then prohibits usuall use of such will lead to m= ore confusion. On the other hand, if I require a diagnosis for own_initializer_list, then = the implementation can simultaneously apply it to the classic initializer_l= ist as well (give or take status level as an error or warning). No addition= al elements of confusion are added, and all the existing confusion is addre= ssed. > Also having non-moveable class does not prevent you from tieing the desct= urion of the elements of the list to destruction of own_initializer_list, a= s proposed in your paper. It renders the distinction meaningless. The paper =C2=A74.4 lists reasons f= or earlier destruction =E2=80=94 did you read it? --=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/. --Apple-Mail=_B59B63BC-07F2-464C-A36E-E121F8591FB6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
On 2015=E2=80=9309= =E2=80=9321, at 4:54 PM, Tomasz <tomaszkam@gmail.com> wrote:

And we can avoi= d repeating the same design that lead to the above desing for the newly int= roduced classes. If I check the class interface and you will found that it = is move constructible, I would expect that I will be able to pass it to fun= ction by value (ok) and return it from the function, also by value (elimina= ted in your design for valid reasons). The design that provide move constru= ctor, but then prohibits usuall use of such will lead to more confusion.

On the = other hand, if I require a diagnosis for = own_initializer_list, then the implementation can simultaneously app= ly it to the classic initializer_list as well (give or take status level as an error or warning). No addition= al elements of confusion are added, and all the existing confusion is addre= ssed.

Also having non-moveable = class does not prevent you from tieing the descturion of the elements of th= e list to destruction of own_initializer_list, as proposed in your paper.

It re= nders the distinction meaningless. The paper =C2=A74.4 lists reasons for ea= rlier destruction =E2=80=94 did you read it?

--

---
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>.
--Apple-Mail=_B59B63BC-07F2-464C-A36E-E121F8591FB6-- .