220 25316 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Frey Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: [RFC] Call for considering "the big picture" re: tuples and parameter packs Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:46:56 +0100 Lines: 69 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <1FCE896E-001A-4F56-8866-FB201ABF3391@gmx.de> <6605C1A6-7DB7-4CDF-9B36-BEE95D90CAED@gmx.de> <56EF33D4.5070509@wanadoo.fr> <20160321032111.4898897.41547.8488@gmail.com> <5544dac2-1449-4039-89b9-e72e98a3db36@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458586031 25230 80.91.229.3 (21 Mar 2016 18:47:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:47:11 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDYYLHN44AERBIUDYG3QKGQE5VF6TBA@isocpp.org Mon Mar 21 19:47:03 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-lb0-f198.google.com ([209.85.217.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ai4qx-0007I4-31 for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:46:59 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-lb0-f198.google.com with SMTP id mj20sf34726243lbb.0 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:46:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isocpp-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references: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=KKuEfoqN1n4PiSiN8xLxy7orz400cPnB+B2vXSuoay8=; b=YBoH33ZKh0vpTFo80d4U3+OTf1muAwA95i+ZqStAmRI/CzQk0WbKGAuf++FImBJ36a hnpN+Rb61j1VO226+nKJ2YENC6QC9atsFrzXvdBxsDr4H4VEtFJM4A5Y3HkmXZKuZk03 DBJ/kvt9Flt8bpPiceAnJHe8EK5FWisiyZhBTFKAreENOCPKPMVegc5QrKDKDz3Yb+cE z4vftltDNUexcgceEoQisSVbQFE6JB6cxZyVvoGE+bH6acExH37nVCMxjo3a5nn5KKgz S1yLwm+CI/KLKWIBxZLiXUavo/Vh1i9kOO+4lKp+6QdB65dxm8LbExInq7LKZ9zKIg6A 68eg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references: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=KKuEfoqN1n4PiSiN8xLxy7orz400cPnB+B2vXSuoay8=; b=RCRVrL5uEtlgT6aQraxzHuo/IivTbLox+5lvlIOEObODVhMEM0rKnyyYgl49oY29Ss zQQFSDsnjbdO00+tUjbMKi6PKif4CVyf/oeHLWz6Fo7M2HRVrbQ+bSXkte0ns9N1tQk7 JLhPhpFnbrcA/29C/1/jXiwLsY9u4Q1PhNRdEXiisN6XcMLnNr5/Tixt3fc34SUO+qd0 ciHu3CewAMYUAY46E65qJj8ieNWOi2BtLt9AE8cI4BYoM9lkyQIUKEn21l2nf+shoXlk BmjC92IKbxJXR9LGBGyBYz8+zIGmhl4JisA3VVg+5mT8UctlMj7oIcUwIAiEkITUa9mv Nme X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJK1i/KC3Y3sbZxhQbNrP7kRu1K9/vUsMWp6YzibRQ0O+0otfoxQ7jgxGbGZ/X9L4g== X-Received: by 10.194.121.197 with SMTP id lm5mr2808790wjb.2.1458586018529; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:46:58 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.28.92.14 with SMTP id q14ls703113wmb.30.gmail; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:46:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.28.158.149 with SMTP id h143mr15205238wme.61.1458586017704; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net. [212.227.17.20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o65si16185347wmg.41.2016.03.21.11.46.57 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of d.frey@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.20 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.20; Original-Received: from fiasko.fritz.box ([79.204.16.198]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MF9WR-1aXxpy1FCV-00GHNT for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:46:57 +0100 In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:qWLO8DreTlGi7kHRAKndnQymFX/DPn3wJcLeqqN+o9IADjMPyIv TdiVXMpbrzNwUW/mt96+jGB2zn5Bd72w6ewAoVuowyrr3aNkLB0OfFaFbUsLvbPp3wLiPjZ cKbKcm0XG01WLgtu9tROKBjF5QZNBAyMTpSBflaslVbB/dBdPu/TN3LhDKAaR9N88pZkEuK lx9I3JDYaXOS29MFcUVUw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:n08H4REAjvE=:X9jdLbyavoOXph5VtAdY3w u7kclyDDupnk+cEU4wL39VrYfb0F6DrBDn3DzbMuds9QtGp3bG/CkzFwRtBFW3TPg0b0Vh7oU EEB4mCZx/Kov9NZQdhxVReXi9jF+GPc1PMKye8CSwBzRZQieJzC9NwHpB5ALT8HiILidPR6yM cxD03U89Bxji+QIvaqP2O4EjV+xsTWd6wIiMXKWgu7m8HVtwCmKLwtrmnTdeQE5Jffgh192pf JwidZtKZIGVMn2dUhkeoarCrL7pscS1nvXkafQomNn1gPOdP0G1udrJIhCSAM/ElqAlw1Gmc+ Vh6rMpFm1ie7zZHoakFnXWNEgfmhodSp2MhQSZ15FvFDXX8FXIDWVMXy/fYxVzi+HnNtQ2Yml NQkMcvrTV2Ip430yI93cvMTkSS3o6VBaEe8Y2xm3OApcZqeYfYb5WfEB71781Zd4Cz4CPeJqd VWi8xVKdRfa7sDMCN80fozpksPitjar9aFxwdh2uSOl+7CkzMM5BLz2ytRQy+RUSZLdsZWPPY VzsJTzTQC+ulDn8/Bub0b8T/t6Kh0grvtwl75pLYJplVayDuOoS2tza1jGYAbVSQ2+FhYM8aG ivwvJ33oq5aOA4cQQjNfxZjumJRIIeas1PUuNYsT1MXlWHOYwvrSeVhzNt3drtTINX1/m41Ui HAqM19NNDoeLlFRGEbV18CGm+xQE75Mu0YJVWIpxbTgbGbW4rhm6PjCop0a9eTjgnTa9BuSEF 9V/kErgObndrmVN7hwghL3gG9GvLRavucxQCephfWeKqhvfcyZe21t1h1aJydzp+Rk+UI4NI X-Original-Sender: d.frey@gmx.de X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of d.frey@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=d.frey@gmx.de 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:25316 Archived-At: > On 21.03.2016, at 19:27, Matthew Woehlke wrote= : >=20 > On 2016-03-21 14:10, barry.revzin@gmail.com wrote: >>> Given a hypothetical (*RTI*) `std::any std::tuple::operator[]`:=20 >>>=20 >>> [...] >>=20 >> That [...] sounds=20 >> like a really good argument for not having RTI for tuple. >=20 > No; not having something because it would be confusing *because we > insisted on shoehorning two different features into the same syntax* > sounds like a terrible argument. It sounds like a case of "what were you > thinking when you made that design decision?". >=20 >> It doesn't address why not CTI operator[] for tuple though. >=20 > I really, honestly, genuinely don't understand why people want to abuse > RTI syntax for something that *is not RTI*. >=20 > CTI !=3D RTI. Quit trying to pretend otherwise. It's not worth it. .... > (I also don't understand why people seem to think that prefix [] is the > end of the world...) >=20 > I want to access the N'th element of 'foo' > -> Use []'s > -> Do you want the access to happen at compile time or run time? > -> Compile time -> [N]foo > -> Run time -> foo[N] >=20 > Why is this so hard? Because some people feel the exact opposite. What is so hard about using t[= N]? I don't see *anything* wrong with it, the context makes it completely o= bvious and straight-forward to me. Should I add phrases like: Open your min= d and quit pretending there's a problem. Why is this so hard? It's not wort= h it. :) Also, it makes the whole discussion really hard as I feel that you are not = even considering "the other side". You are convinced that your way is the r= ight way and your wording does not show any openness towards other people's= opinions. At least myself, I find prefix indexing an abomination, I have n= ever seen any language that has anything similar (e.g. on http://rigaux.org= /language-study/syntax-across-languages/). In fact, I think that your prefix operator[] is as inconsistent as choosing= /mixing CTI/RTI on postfix operator[], just in a different dimension. You s= ay it's prefix if it's CTI, postfix if RTI. Consistent in this dimension, b= ut considering that you are using it for both packs and non-packs, you are = inconsistent in that. For what I am proposing, you have CTI operator[] for = non-packs and ...[] for packs (implicitly CTI only). Your suggestion is not= purely better, it is trading one advantage with one disadvantage (syntax-w= ise). -- Daniel --=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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp= ..org/d/msgid/std-proposals/AC60D68D-7006-453F-8708-4E5476FFCB3E%40gmx.de. .