220 24620 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Viacheslav Usov Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: throwaway variable Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:43:23 +0100 Lines: 64 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <9658e852-6254-4ecf-a6d4-879160d4de7d@isocpp.org> <56CC82E9.8070601@gmail.com> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113e24b4d5ba46052c72a52a X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1456245813 9106 80.91.229.3 (23 Feb 2016 16:43:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:43:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: potswa@gmail.com To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDU6VRPKW4BBBLEYWK3AKGQEMTW2FKQ@isocpp.org Tue Feb 23 17:43:32 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-io0-f199.google.com ([209.85.223.199]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aYG3a-0006jC-5E for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:43:26 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-io0-f199.google.com with SMTP id h34sf413951836ioi.3 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 08:43:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isocpp-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc: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=DITCnz370JtqpX/PCE4UuHQnW6GHA1pYLdN/xrLOisE=; b=hd51KSYW4PNxtdh1X5TX6cLZxsscpLt+AEE6yIPGakESgKF9YIQnMErIXVsxi1yosc qZJvuj8wYaZoMut/1DFw29l3134g4iEPacJn0LXm63ZHn8PwaUH488mQN/1ZUdVj7XuY pTSquw5fVBz9h+gXpKKnmIF5cgC0ebbgmc9qCt/k/MBV28paa0zDlEuUUuxKvaH6V+qJ s25WB9cVDG8bOJUYCk+JPw4UjTQReUakv1lgzA2pqLxxM7FoItN91GcDW9bmK6ObylDZ eYrPUtRsEMy0nNAyX4auUpYuF8kMyCVELxpr888TTEnkZHx9zBGGjyWh+1PUOfOJPO7Q R1Zg== 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:cc: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=DITCnz370JtqpX/PCE4UuHQnW6GHA1pYLdN/xrLOisE=; b=Hb7QmXDqRMk2wXrDWITZqETEVuuyfa5p6d7OhxOnEdoiLWrpSlldhVNctSavZxhR+1 Unf9iLebpCBUbqOI90zso9J7ezbYU+3oIybW4oPyHz6EysNMGJRt8NSNlRqHhLwM1iyu u3vS0qv7I0ih8nZ2MNfANptZbj1NfdYHfygLAjdD9Gde6KUJKvPdYPnEb3c8W5XPWaTD c+mqTruPwxeIbXneHG9SG5aNNRzqdp9r361VRN/mdPjLhFYrSNdCSH6QhhHXSPhKMBmX L/F2HHM0f5iPw3832lGTZ3ZamC8H4GQLSSExEj2/UBClBz68QIQTVwxd2J8k2YRyxTxQ VhUg== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORCMG/SrEyB2KFnUhmAU1zcddceUMcNmF0Qr/5WiVVpfQiYVXDn80z2yMBhseGChQ== X-Received: by 10.182.105.133 with SMTP id gm5mr31549649obb.41.1456245805068; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 08:43:25 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.182.204.106 with SMTP id kx10ls1109002obc.37.gmail; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 08:43:23 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.202.229.134 with SMTP id c128mr27411150oih.115.1456245803891; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 08:43:23 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from mail-oi0-x22f.google.com (mail-oi0-x22f.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22f]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y7si21871923obk.68.2016.02.23.08.43.23 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Feb 2016 08:43:23 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of via.usov@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22f as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22f; Original-Received: by mail-oi0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id j125so83080084oih.0 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 08:43:23 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.202.196.17 with SMTP id u17mr27251483oif.122.1456245803691; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 08:43:23 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.76.170.70 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 08:43:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <56CC82E9.8070601@gmail.com> X-Original-Sender: via.usov@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of via.usov@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22f as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=via.usov@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:24620 Archived-At: --001a113e24b4d5ba46052c72a52a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > I don't think it tried to cover this; only where the entity was still accessible, albeit indirectly or only partially. It would be nice to know where that proposal stands, certainly. Even if it gets adopted, though, I'd say an explicit lifetime extension syntax is not useless. As far as I can tell, the proposal essentially depends on propagating lifetime extension via export-decorated functions. That takes an effort, and there is legacy/library code, too, so pinning a temporary explicitly can just be easier. And it solves the anonymous variable problem, too. Cheers, V. -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAA7YVg3vmdqDpFUO0uTPgepMHxPkxG%3D0cz%2BA%3D72WL2S3QKoH6w%40mail.gmail.com. --001a113e24b4d5ba46052c72a52a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= ue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.floss@gmail= ..com> wrote:

> I don't think it= tried to cover this; only where the entity was still accessible, albeit in= directly or only partially.

It would be nice to kn= ow where that proposal stands, certainly.

Even if = it gets adopted, though, I'd say an explicit lifetime extension syntax = is not useless. As far as I can tell, the proposal essentially depends on p= ropagating lifetime extension via export-decorated functions. That takes an= effort, and there is legacy/library code, too, so pinning a temporary expl= icitly can just be easier. And it solves the anonymous variable problem, to= o.

Cheers,
V.

=

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAA7YVg3vmd= qDpFUO0uTPgepMHxPkxG%3D0cz%2BA%3D72WL2S3QKoH6w%40mail.gmail.com.
--001a113e24b4d5ba46052c72a52a-- .