220 29005 <71dea059-b425-4b2d-966c-ef2ea90ca968@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: FrankHB1989 Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Is World's Dumbest Pointer still on the table?!? Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 03:02:02 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 199 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <71dea059-b425-4b2d-966c-ef2ea90ca968@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> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_94_1564122504.1476957722193" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1476957756 8318 195.159.176.226 (20 Oct 2016 10:02:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:02:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: mihailnajdenov@gmail.com To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCTJVBPG3QIBBHFMULAAKGQERLFFYKY@isocpp.org Thu Oct 20 12:02:28 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-yw0-f199.google.com ([209.85.161.199]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bxAAk-0006aZ-S9 for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 12:02:03 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-yw0-f199.google.com with SMTP id t193sf110352437ywc.0 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 03:02:05 -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=9ndrkAFrS2Eu9PYZCHWmNfQBwvpv+ssiwQdMAkN1S8c=; b=qEc1P8js418I6visl7IsV3RFqx14zX7XZGeV6Dg7hrPIE2XI02nlp5lqETW87QmUi4 c3ytClwQtjsqywvLJVGo6jx0bbGeNf+GqmNcOh8tL7lvcchw0iPIFTXS0NjizK6JyOQC CPtPbJ5dqLdH8Wu6v8cPLejbv9yu/BfLZ6TnmQvA2zUsjsX+twfvHo9yF33txoj88vpe 2FHPOql5Lqg0vUG4Ni6I2tkiNSL9YCgz2jzmETkrEC+ntToEn2o7X8XmNtWpLFpsYodu VY1rwlweTsN36MWQKjti9rZPcj0SLwtlsDz0z+vaqDfp3fYxqZR0+JImWa2FS5fIk6Nz 8c4Q== 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=9ndrkAFrS2Eu9PYZCHWmNfQBwvpv+ssiwQdMAkN1S8c=; b=lD02qDGiEvFcS9vcnTANh97egtYeBnxQhZawTKCwwnG9K9auFM3u7BApK4ztHKbHbN Z/c4qGPVRK911bwgOwjOZI8ihCh0KD9f5GLfn7OyFfV3rV7H+nDLkQQ1zgYAw5ZVuPe2 oUmZO5tVVZgnHCHhP3oUsx9HlCgllTE1BdAFQ/xINU3YPI4Bz6b2TsY61Jzm1gG5pvaT QkfUFdI5G540vWAzNVaYyiSJk4+Se3gdJiejv3AzVdNPr6agYg8XwX1N9JBiMWk3W8m5 vFNBnm7BjDATTaJ1ZMojrS7DV1v6lCb0BVXOhwDSQ0rSyd35ADte0hRluNxVdsY+UK3z KG0A== 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=9ndrkAFrS2Eu9PYZCHWmNfQBwvpv+ssiwQdMAkN1S8c=; b=KvtPPpkr3bJ3pPW81nFtMNdzn/GLkIRdaTpa18/dEVaRK1pfY5nVIYmas/DhiApesS xAIX5RkaX5/vBz0BzBGi6tAaghQzNHfsEToGcNT3CTrJQozpB/vlr3JAnvxq2XYcq0nx 63H0k5M1WvzozxBRLvQfROCoJ6mmfq5JtuWZd56LG1ZxC6b+SeOMH7/lJwEjmBSSiuHk tTYftBmugdSuRqTz6O+zXbFPVc9xpd8A4GJy8FtCY9KMZ+a9eBtIxlAS/dbS+fi3TUL5 5JZhfV8bO/PVMadvOCnjN1UKzH49KIbEDHvC59RYVNhURP53+cn7uNikMh2JsuukFgHk h0UQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RnlqMpiCEoPe6y574iLjkRI6m2un9DURl3s4Ro9+Vtn7vg10owZceSaNrtZy9P/Hg== X-Received: by 10.13.243.198 with SMTP id c189mr3329619ywf.158.1476957725057; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 03:02:05 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.107.7.39 with SMTP id 39ls1488199ioh.39.gmail; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 03:02:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.36.190.137 with SMTP id i131mr937744itf.8.1476957723892; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 03:02:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <39f69270-f3f8-412c-82ac-f192d2642185@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: frankhb1989@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:29005 Archived-At: ------=_Part_94_1564122504.1476957722193 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_95_966278194.1476957722193" ------=_Part_95_966278194.1476957722193 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =E5=9C=A8 2016=E5=B9=B410=E6=9C=8819=E6=97=A5=E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E4=B8=89 UT= C+8=E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=886:42:04=EF=BC=8Cmihailn...@gmail.com=E5=86=99=E9=81=93= =EF=BC=9A > > > > On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 1:29:04 PM UTC+3, FrankHB1989 wrote: >> >> >> >> =E5=9C=A8 2016=E5=B9=B410=E6=9C=8819=E6=97=A5=E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E4=B8=89= UTC+8=E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=885:58:55=EF=BC=8Cmihailn...@gmail.com=E5=86=99=E9=81= =93=EF=BC=9A >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 12:38:30 PM UTC+3, FrankHB1989 wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> =E5=9C=A8 2016=E5=B9=B410=E6=9C=8819=E6=97=A5=E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E4=B8= =89 UTC+8=E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=884:30:37=EF=BC=8Cmihailn...@gmail.com=E5=86=99=E9= =81=93=EF=BC=9A >>>>> >>>>> Ok,=20 >>>>> I hope we all agree reset(T*) and release() have new meaning in the= =20 >>>>> context of a observer_ptr. Ok? >>>>> >>>>> For you, it is not a problem - the class is free to add whatever=20 >>>>> meaning it wants to. >>>>> >>>>> I simply argue, it can well be a problem and potentially adding a=20 >>>>> confusion. >>>>> >>>>> auto p =3D foo(); >>>>> >>>>> if(cond(p)) >>>>> p.reset(hello.getBar()); >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> All I am saying, this code above, for current smart pointers, meant -= =20 >>>>> p now *has* the bar object. >>>>> >>>>> With observer_ptr into the picture, it might also mean - p now *point= s=20 >>>>> to* a bar. >>>>> >>>>> For current smart pointers in the standard, it is also true. The=20 >>>> assumption is just further weaken (correctly). >>>> ... >>>> >>> >>> Is it, really? For both (all?) smart pointers today, the meaning is the= =20 >>> same - p is now master of bar. The only difference is, is this ownershi= p=20 >>> shared with other p clones or not. >>> Where in the observer case, it is something quite different.=20 >>> >>> Again, it might well not be a problem, but I don't believe it is a=20 >>> difference to be taken lightly.=20 >>> >> No. A smart pointer is not necessarily owning, even if all instances in= =20 >> the current standard are owning. See also=20 >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_pointer, esp. external links. >> > =20 > Of course, but the case in point is all the code written against the=20 > current notions, from both std and other implementations like Qt, and the= =20 > effect observer will have. > I don't see they have defined or suggested such notions of smart pointers.= =20 > Mind you, I don't argue, observer does something wrong by itself, if take= n=20 > in isolation. > I only argue, in the context of older pointer types, this overload use of= =20 > the old interface is something rather questionable.=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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp= ..org/d/msgid/std-proposals/71dea059-b425-4b2d-966c-ef2ea90ca968%40isocpp.or= g. ------=_Part_95_966278194.1476957722193 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=E5=9C=A8 2016=E5=B9=B410=E6=9C=8819=E6=97=A5=E6= =98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E4=B8=89 UTC+8=E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=886:42:04=EF=BC=8Cmihailn...@= gmail.com=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A


On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 1:29:04 PM= UTC+3, FrankHB1989 wrote:


=E5=9C=A8 2016=E5=B9=B410=E6=9C=8819=E6=97=A5=E6=98=9F=E6= =9C=9F=E4=B8=89 UTC+8=E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=885:58:55=EF=BC=8Cmihailn...@g= mail.com=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A


On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 12:38:30 PM = UTC+3, FrankHB1989 wrote:


=E5=9C=A8 2016=E5=B9=B410=E6=9C=8819=E6=97=A5=E6=98=9F=E6= =9C=9F=E4=B8=89 UTC+8=E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=884:30:37=EF=BC=8Cmihailn...@g= mail.com=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
Ok,
I hope we all agree reset(T*) and = release() have new meaning in the context of a observer_ptr. Ok?
=
For you, it is not a problem - the class is free to add what= ever meaning it wants to.

I simply argue, it can w= ell be a problem and potentially adding a confusion.

auto p =3D= foo();=

if(cond(p))
=C2=A0p.reset(hello= .getBar= ());



All I am saying,= this code above, for current smart pointers, meant - p now has the = bar object.

With observer_ptr into the picture, it= might also mean - p now points to a bar.

=
For current smart pointers in the standard, it is also tr= ue. The assumption is just further weaken (correctly).
=C2=A0...

Is it, really? For=C2=A0both (all?= )=C2=A0smart pointers today,=C2=A0the meaning is the same - p is now master= of bar. The only difference is, is this ownership shared with other p clon= es or not.
Where in the observer case, it is something quite diff= erent.

Again, it might well not be a problem, but= I don't believe it is a difference to be taken lightly.
No. A smart pointer is not necessarily owning, even if all = instances in the current standard are owning. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_point= er, esp. external links.
=C2=A0
<= div>Of course, but the case in point is all the code written=C2=A0against t= he current notions, from both std and other implementations like Qt, and th= e effect observer will have.
I don't see t= hey have defined or suggested such notions of smart pointers.
Mind you, I= don't argue, observer does something wrong by itself, if taken in isol= ation.
I only argue, in the context of older pointer types, this = overload use of the old interface is something rather questionable.
<= /div>

--
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/71dea059-b425-4b2d-966c-ef2ea90ca968= %40isocpp.org.
------=_Part_95_966278194.1476957722193-- ------=_Part_94_1564122504.1476957722193-- .