220 21168 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Robert Kawulak Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: P0116: Boolean conversion for Standard Library types Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:35:04 +0200 Lines: 25 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1443796514 16038 80.91.229.3 (2 Oct 2015 14:35:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:35:14 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBD7YJZMJ5YDBBGFMXKYAKGQEC44UHTQ@isocpp.org Fri Oct 02 16:35:09 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-qg0-f69.google.com ([209.85.192.69]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Zi1QR-0006mr-Qw for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 16:35:07 +0200 Original-Received: by qgez77 with SMTP id z77sf112307768qge.2 for ; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 07:35:07 -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: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:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=QciXS9w+yNKX1yKvj5LgEUbHskS2Z1R7fKorUithmg0=; b=GNPJI7LLMSRqSW1Nm1C4IEwFtjl9SLhlWWvqHszagXD1IhL7Qdt448jMhe/2HIVutA BQ4kQ6xEzbqiw3QIWuXZ0SJt3jnuCgfcU4sIMch/8PIKPzlFNNWv7KV40yt72m83dU3A 2su6l/8V0anqo4n3Mz2Aqv0eruPL+rP25mtGjVm4rAFUh81l8OwY4z1NZTj4+TZ4Cb3w asABnBjmF0jiAPeMOOq+Gl7WhMeE+Hy3pRI4nz8uhopxOO/L9Je9u9uTrkExsTFfuuQa K14BMW0FGsHVetPXOKQTTxUZp3ckAXZ7Ms4Tmtu042YwYpdW65N7141UIV2iMU+r9wtc Pj+A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkkvnPbB6iC6i0bSJcU/cUPztUsMiIf78F0YHMbBxBEXpUpwsQm6Rz9dXexnS19BsM/aD9U X-Received: by 10.129.39.87 with SMTP id n84mr13514546ywn.4.1443796507097; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 07:35:07 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.182.24.103 with SMTP id t7ls911119obf.41.gmail; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 07:35:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.202.49.195 with SMTP id x186mr9120150oix.81.1443796504556; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 07:35:04 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-oi0-x234.google.com (mail-oi0-x234.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4003:c06::234]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ds8si6133036obb.98.2015.10.02.07.35.04 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Oct 2015 07:35:04 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of robert.kawulak@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c06::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c06::234; Original-Received: by oibi136 with SMTP id i136so58849613oib.3 for ; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 07:35:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.202.177.9 with SMTP id a9mr9129651oif.16.1443796504306; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 07:35:04 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.76.70.164 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 07:35:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: Robert.Kawulak@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of robert.kawulak@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c06::234 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=robert.kawulak@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:21168 Archived-At: 2015-10-01 20:56 GMT+02:00, Alisdair Meredith : > I strongly prefer using named functions with 'bitset' so that it is clear > whether I am testing for 'any' bit being set, or 'all' bits being set. Actually bitset, along with duration, was my main motivation for working on this topic. The one thing I miss in bitset compared to using bare unsigned ints for bitmasks is bool conversion. Like in: if (auto errorBits = GetErrorBits() ) { // there are some error bits set, handle this } I wouldn't think that there could be a confusion between any/all semantics for bitset bool conversion. Would you agree to tentatively keep bitset in the proposal and ask for the judgement of the rest of the Committee? -- --- 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/. .