220 29871 article Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "D. B." Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Extending the scope of generalized lambda captures to include the lambda's trailing return type Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 15:26:21 +0000 Lines: 117 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86e2f80e722a0543dc4f70 X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1481988384 22151 195.159.176.226 (17 Dec 2016 15:26:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 15:26:24 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCWNZ4ECS4GBBHVS2XBAKGQET7I32TQ@isocpp.org Sat Dec 17 16:26:20 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-lf0-f71.google.com ([209.85.215.71]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cIGsM-0004xh-Ji for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 16:26:18 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-lf0-f71.google.com with SMTP id c13sf15907126lfg.4 for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:26:23 -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:from:date:message-id:subject: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=CvKz+ru8q1T9RXzTtRiIEFBESONse7AGKh791sqG0rc=; b=yugpQYIL4g5iR3M5ShFcymbPpa4mmaykJQ2MYbGnCtcN2sIrjc2VRb0EpgHdB0hwi1 ehgsxpzfSq3Q9VjfyYhQKBPYKXJHk+j+lhC58NAIPcH0UiTVYbpNswzgAi7ml8ZfbLj6 W7h7U8xFy+lyIou7/GHac67l0Wognx28PnOexAfHSQ8Af5w6keO5qVOuz/Re78Dmq5E6 K7FZCuefFq3kx7wQLd1z+XiaoTAoFV09+pfget+mSbe7ZiWYuX0txrrAq4RO45I42/YJ 1Vo+7xtR0lxLAR7McD0LZbWmdedme8RNB1lUpShEv+q5mTZcQhuSarW5Ze1kCISsDy0Q MKFg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject: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=CvKz+ru8q1T9RXzTtRiIEFBESONse7AGKh791sqG0rc=; b=ZyTzERUt5QLrpVR4yBiNfSEdd3QtPtsDa3JoK6GFCA+nYR2PB6sHPWEMaEQiNCrsod WZeTBZfPiRy/jPRwXH9mfH+8zjd/LsryDUW85L/2OAAcEnQLyAHc1b9skFVYAFP5s6EC /xnh9nIugr10km7HBgBQ40RVGy748jFx6+SxosiWG79qD+xQAGF9sLqmGZNMhaQt/J6z QdG5QGee/9FfsBxMUVQqzYtr/LVPLcrGgqTuV0YsJksl6IVLgsqpWnZ+SmUJahevb8OY QBCR4Hvdh7gvn1/n6CCPWfEBO3Gy2JYOkL+eXUdjNoKNldSqtLv+qN9Bu7hcmAQa19V/ 8CkQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02SuLfVf1dUGkK8OIwbOMmaX2lHQtORNZeaYCOz17ONOZc6+Ry6ZdSfgplCGcnmOQ== X-Received: by 10.46.9.193 with SMTP id 184mr765914ljj.12.1481988383417; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:26:23 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.28.148.208 with SMTP id w199ls673837wmd.2.canary-gmail; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:26:22 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.171.104 with SMTP id at8mr7149308wjc.159.1481988382121; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:26:22 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from mail-wj0-x233.google.com (mail-wj0-x233.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c01::233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d18si8387777wmd.16.2016.12.17.07.26.22 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:26:22 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of db0451@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c01::233 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c01::233; Original-Received: by mail-wj0-x233.google.com with SMTP id tg4so115897252wjb.1 for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:26:22 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.194.60.195 with SMTP id j3mr7476012wjr.149.1481988381764; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:26:21 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.28.144.66 with HTTP; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 07:26:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: db0451@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of db0451@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c01::233 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=db0451@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-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:29871 Archived-At: --047d7b86e2f80e722a0543dc4f70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Vittorio Romeo < vittorio.romeo.vee@gmail.com> wrote: > > * The last example posted by Arthur > int i; > auto f = [i=0L](char i) -> decltype(i) { return 0; } > // decltype(f(0)) == ??? > is something that the paper should address, after the change in scope. I > am not sure where to start here though, as I'm confident that multiple > rules from different parts of the standard come into play here. > Intuitively I think that the return type should evaluate to `char` (as the > parameter `i` is closer to the trailing return type). What do you think? > I agree with Arthur and you on this, particularly because in addition to being geographically closer, having the parameter shadow the member variable is correct in terms of consistency with 'real' class methods. -- 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/CACGiwhFTaWLRhxJkoDk9Aaar7xD_-%2BEOqkCwhYK6iz4ebd9HVQ%40mail.gmail.com. --047d7b86e2f80e722a0543dc4f70 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On S= at, Dec 17, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Vittorio Romeo <vittorio.romeo.v= ee@gmail.com> wrote:

* The last example posted by Arthur=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0int=C2=A0i;
=C2=A0 =C2= =A0=C2=A0auto=C2=A0f=C2=A0=3D=C2=A0= [i=3D0L](char=C2=A0i)=C2=A0->=C2=A0de= cltype(i)=C2=A0{=C2=A0return=C2=A00;=C2=A0}
=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0// decltype(f(0)) =3D=3D ???
is something tha= t the paper should address, after the change in scope. I am not sure where = to start here though, as I'm confident that multiple rules from differe= nt parts of the standard come into play here.
Intuitively I think that = the return type should evaluate to `char` (as the parameter `i` is closer t= o the trailing return type). What do you think?=C2=A0


I agree with Arthur and= you on this, particularly because in addition to being geographically clos= er, having the parameter shadow the member variable is correct in terms of = consistency with 'real' class methods.

--
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 h= ttps://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CACGiwhFTaWLRhx= JkoDk9Aaar7xD_-%2BEOqkCwhYK6iz4ebd9HVQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--047d7b86e2f80e722a0543dc4f70-- .