220 29003 <10dd3035-5546-414c-980f-2a1b06b9dd5b@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joseph.thomson@gmail.com Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Is World's Dumbest Pointer still on the table?!? Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 01:45:10 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 107 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <10dd3035-5546-414c-980f-2a1b06b9dd5b@isocpp.org> References: <8a6731f7-1c9b-482d-817e-c2374fc9ae1b@isocpp.org> <7d817482-e7c3-4724-9501-738d4c9083d7@isocpp.org> <986ffd0c-7466-476a-96af-525aaf8b24ea@isocpp.org> <5adf05e5-edb4-4706-816b-59b71d5c1a6f@isocpp.org> <3241f484-0d5a-4363-8ddd-d3813a54fcb1@isocpp.org> <0c7c0968-f1c2-46df-b787-631fdd9f2d6c@isocpp.org> <39f69270-f3f8-412c-82ac-f192d2642185@isocpp.org> <21f90a12-3d1f-4f65-8974-66ee3a17f88d@isocpp.org> <6ddbccaf-a7eb-4193-86d0-31300fd2f9ae@isocpp.org> <8c24951b-5d86-46e4-85c8-1a9372020dff@isocpp.org> <2df66fdb-3586-4ccc-b589-558298b28a56@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_297_844154839.1476953110861" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1476953129 11875 195.159.176.226 (20 Oct 2016 08:45:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:45:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: mihailnajdenov@gmail.com, joseph.thomson@gmail.com To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDQM7AFVVUERBGEIULAAKGQEQQGPFAA@isocpp.org Thu Oct 20 10:45:25 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-it0-f70.google.com ([209.85.214.70]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bx8yM-0000jh-OR for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:45:10 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-it0-f70.google.com with SMTP id m138sf93144134itm.1 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 01:45:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isocpp-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version: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=vkdlXuxihMy/b16qUHsk4kWu0qsV3pEXIcbPMHz+CfY=; b=KlYfgh7dDcxf9zp0aJS7J+XazvBK8A0VlxTSFQ+Fw97kSblLw5iNZSMsnDt3wECUcH TvrKzbDLL3Tc/FPlGgXnl7bAiD/xwSmV2cKHfGnj1Bv5GWdv3SkqnplDbV/VrUee5ohr fpIDgmKcBXLnKbqxt4Pvi/iNkIBloIxg1IfbFu53opYZwJ/pjH4FxeQYS0Dp24bTpPO2 5JFc0iE3jMjI2lxsesvQQFICvFjpJTVVpnkPG5ITQxhVdPUcDfPmsUxlyyBuAtUSV7K/ cfdm8j5izR45Wwnp0ihM1U1pU8GJejVbQoxFHmvhzMaFiLkqfMuTsN4hMalkuLA+1XKG L0HA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version: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=vkdlXuxihMy/b16qUHsk4kWu0qsV3pEXIcbPMHz+CfY=; b=UQY8ytPMcUfnUWq4ImqW4htm+eKk6NBMxGuDMOLYjFfooBLzc84RKgcKn/L6r8zL9q declSCNTDeI6VPCiaN67fjbUtFfIF8ZvEWfH6EX+6WewTScfGEGUVPeNyMQhxKyNpIPE p3vU6lNjQSM1opjeZDC+CDVLYWQaWRx3cylIyiVthW8YEjdD7bpDUtX2BLFJsJ0yEp13 lCzQAzWVhR4x6c81Awd+80q7aJlzdGjSRBe/YX5AWWbHUujL2KcQKvoF8n1kQk8J1b3O xYW49bWFxMc707RUaBVIg0njDIgjYyOLBgRO4tJusn0JPwKGA3X1mEE83sGiinFD8jQY 3ydQ== 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:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version: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=vkdlXuxihMy/b16qUHsk4kWu0qsV3pEXIcbPMHz+CfY=; b=Y0jCDUeM1Wj7aYOTqp6revbd+kHDQuMvEkYV1FP/+J5SdoATamy0Fsh+dhbH1DA3e6 UkRZ6kDwPyBRvw8sqIPEqugDiHOkANT8L4a+PS9CVB74VUej5ootV2L2IpocU2ryNPdg aI2wQ3eoEfkqE0iAccl+rq6RTli7EeualvwiAb/io4a0SqswnFn+Y3Smnp0YV1PY2P+W F1F+Uqe+PKTO6uLKjStHT29O6YKxM9rTm+9zW6mZaJu6H1X8/489bzmU6nftJbo/1OTk dpkxwTM9QK+nkeIzxk1nsFRQh6QCq9j2rSS2of3xoEOp1LYlrCEwNluGVpmIaGMu75e4 RPCw== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RlZhBq3dOxXlqmSU/wIPs1e9XgmXGMrbW8m5qkMMHR2eNF9QGnAUw7CppIJaR6NaQ== X-Received: by 10.107.170.90 with SMTP id t87mr3613855ioe.4.1476953112931; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 01:45:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.36.10.13 with SMTP id 13ls1498407itw.16.gmail; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 01:45:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.36.181.92 with SMTP id j28mr928205iti.3.1476953112072; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 01:45:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2df66fdb-3586-4ccc-b589-558298b28a56@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: joseph.thomson@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: 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:29003 Archived-At: ------=_Part_297_844154839.1476953110861 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_298_496775763.1476953110862" ------=_Part_298_496775763.1476953110862 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thursday, 20 October 2016 15:09:16 UTC+8, mihailn...@gmail.com wrote: > > My intentions are not to change your mind - we, as well as everyone else, > are perfectly aware of the pros and cons of both approaches - raw vs new > ptr. > I think it helps to have these things written down. Even if everyone else knows everything already, it helps me get my thoughts in order and realize where my reasoning is flawed. We also agree, any "operator." (in quotes, not necessarily overloading it) > will dramatically change any possible implementation of such a wrapper > pointer type. > I don't agree with this. I think "operator dot overloading" will have limited to no application in this case. I believe it will have more of an application with types that act to modify select parts of an API while retaining the overall appearance of the underlying type like, for example, propagate_const. > I also agree with you propagate_const should be integral part of such a > wrapper pointer type, not a cumbersome opt-in. > I'm in two minds about this. It may be better to keep const propagation separate. As a result, I (still) strongly believe observer_ptr should *not* go into > the standard in its current form. > It will be half-assessed, and will rise as many issues/questions as it > solves and will be become the auto_ptr version of a much better view type. > Agreed. -- 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/10dd3035-5546-414c-980f-2a1b06b9dd5b%40isocpp.org. ------=_Part_298_496775763.1476953110862 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thursday, 20 October 2016 15:09:16 UTC+8, mihailn...@gm= ail.com wrote:
My intentions are not to change your mind=C2=A0- we, as well as ever= yone else, are perfectly aware of the=C2=A0pros and cons of both approaches= - raw vs new ptr.
=C2=A0
I think it helps = to have these things written down. Even if everyone else knows everything a= lready, it helps me get my thoughts in order and realize where my reasoning= is flawed.

We also agree, any "operator." (in qu= otes, not necessarily overloading it) will dramatically change any possible= implementation of=C2=A0such a wrapper pointer type.

I don't agree with this. I think "operator dot overload= ing" will have limited to no application in this case. I believe it wi= ll have more of an application with types that act to modify select parts o= f an API while retaining the overall appearance of the underlying type like= , for example, propagat= e_const.
=C2=A0
I also=C2=A0agree with you=C2=A0propagate_const shou= ld be integral part of such a wrapper pointer type, not a cumbersome opt-in= ..=C2=A0

I'm in two minds about this. I= t may be better to keep const propagation separate.

As a result, I (still)= =C2=A0strongly believe=C2=A0observer_ptr=C2=A0should not=C2=A0go int= o the standard in its current form.
It will be half-assessed, and will = rise as many issues/questions as it solves and will be become=C2=A0the=C2= =A0auto_ptr version of a much better view type.

Agreed.

--
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/10dd3035-5546-414c-980f-2a1b06b9dd5b= %40isocpp.org.
------=_Part_298_496775763.1476953110862-- ------=_Part_297_844154839.1476953110861-- .