220 31903 article Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Raffaele Rossi Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: This variable should not be named: an identifier (not) to remember Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:25:39 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 99 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <985b9b2a-c734-45eb-95f4-db4dc0d309a1@isocpp.org> <00f80877-4564-406b-9dc5-d2d961b8dce3@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_2799_847978691.1490891139645" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1490891150 11774 195.159.176.226 (30 Mar 2017 16:25:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:25:50 +0000 (UTC) To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC6IBYFLW4MRBBHD6TDAKGQEOKZ5GQQ@isocpp.org Thu Mar 30 18:25:46 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-yb0-f197.google.com ([209.85.213.197]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ctctD-0001lq-Ew for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 18:25:35 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-yb0-f197.google.com with SMTP id p83sf5378987yba.4 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:25:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isocpp-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to: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=0Cxqu+pz13hCZzvaQTS9wczRiIj5kudMRtIjU+HEUtA=; b=UNTdoHPYE3tF2nHqfLW/S6YLdDPQif0jztbFpbH99r9XBSipIhrA3iIEKIRX/zr9Bt 4c7z/QrzhNlWxpgxNN1A+rPAeXwjSIdGIjHABtFl+KOf73j4LMcV7WsTqtnZbXi/cx6t PDO31L7nQ+NeM4Bniw/xHuTuno62t3vAYUMgKw4aqLPfhlwkqdWq/s7Al3yKuRUN2GO4 suaLyIS5U4/lx50eimJ+2DS7a4Se3ba47rMrkXoLK69OGp6h3Irqk02R23duMIyVQb8h TgOch4uRpjom6Wv6rhU7xVI3p/biLce/3uMpGjDEH2m3awzuJbywxkaWfvCPw5dExgue VOJg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to: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=0Cxqu+pz13hCZzvaQTS9wczRiIj5kudMRtIjU+HEUtA=; b=sSI6uRJY5KoTjLwgooRTxSqlOk/3ctG1qy2cgymli+awnW/YEGI+dUAv3Mpkj2xXcz lS/IyCdTT5avwV/b60BJJvv7H7syf/lLSQMJ4/dgIeh+dNTsRxnkXxObgLaRQUgSOHLo C4D15hw9K449wLTCQ6vqu5rkyiUdQNEa/bNmAAobTy2N5md2f2e6bzO9xvf1j/lZrhg6 /2A3TY6O9TytPsoJqTcPv4wLqdPK2xYipHOMpxKd4FQ64JMl0H5XtP5/i2S0SGtedFFq 4haOaWsumvdCjjI/ki4H+G8y06u+wgUAHlRqyoIcLgl+BGOxCdBdH4wYGsN716fn5t1r ki7g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to: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=0Cxqu+pz13hCZzvaQTS9wczRiIj5kudMRtIjU+HEUtA=; b=EPERW2ktiMolip4y0cqqlIC3Jlwll8twyxDU2N+20xKzcBb6dsqqbfkqscC3H1dTaB g8QV9/g5g3qgsfQto4P7kqIUOoOHjx0Fa7TEeXEwvXZgY+H0f91fSvX2m4f4xyiEsQqu ibXMvRXfbVl+U7eBriJkXaqXpJoqzr7XxyeYOwp2He02aT836IrxaO8FLJsNZdPrZ2Fi tW2TLYHgatY+3Cc3PLE2F1UbX5qMrVRC0l7TPTeWzngWnqWQb4lnE9qxQjCzM54SRRSq hQoA9yTn6YEbGEp7cnu0uaeaALvfPjviJ7pT9KEzdzK5M2Tcsl+uCKG73ij5enNWVL8b WotQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H02eqeZNMC0Uc8gOXpzZZ1SCJM+6SLdI0Izqtbq/TPsOVmr0RtCYpGPqAwxOhUGGg== X-Received: by 10.129.82.134 with SMTP id g128mr223380ywb.18.1490891141062; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:25:41 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.157.39.115 with SMTP id r106ls448924ota.10.gmail; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:25:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.157.9.183 with SMTP id q52mr56500otd.11.1490891140168; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:25:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: rossi.raffaele@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:31903 Archived-At: ------=_Part_2799_847978691.1490891139645 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2800_1482505948.1490891139645" ------=_Part_2800_1482505948.1490891139645 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You only add a scope if you need it, i.e to lock only a section of a=20 function, in which case you have to create a scope anyway: void foo() { // do stuff { unique_lock __{mutex}; } } And between the two, doing using(...) { } is also more explicit on the=20 intention, instead of just opening a "anonymous" scope, isn't it? Il giorno gioved=C3=AC 30 marzo 2017 15:36:10 UTC+1, Nicol Bolas ha scritto= : > > On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 4:12:46 AM UTC-4, Raffaele Rossi wrote: >> >> Wouldn't it be much better to have a concept of Context? >> > > Why would I want to introduce a whole new scope when simply declaring an= =20 > unnamed variable is sufficient? It's adding pointless braces for somethin= g=20 > that C++ gives by default. > > Other languages use this syntax because they *don't* provide RAII by=20 > default. C++ does, so there's no need for explicit syntax to say what we= =20 > normally have. > --=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/fb4d95ca-355d-4248-8949-628f42c999dc%40isocpp.or= g. ------=_Part_2800_1482505948.1490891139645 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You only add a scope if you need it, i.e to lock only= a section of a function, in which case you have to create a scope anyway:<= br>

void foo= () {
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 /= / do stuff
=C2=A0 = =C2=A0 {
=C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 unique_lock __{mutex};
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 }
}

And between = the two, doing using(...) { } = is also more explicit on the intention, instead of just opening a "ano= nymous" scope, isn't it?

Il giorno gioved=C3=AC 30 marzo 20= 17 15:36:10 UTC+1, Nicol Bolas ha scritto:
On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 4:12:46 AM UTC-= 4, Raffaele Rossi wrote:
Wouldn't it be much better to have a concept of Context?

Why would I want to introduce a whole new sco= pe when simply declaring an unnamed variable is sufficient? It's adding= pointless braces for something that C++ gives by default.

Other lan= guages use this syntax because they don't provide RAII by defaul= t. C++ does, so there's no need for explicit syntax to say what we norm= ally have.

--
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/fb4d95ca-355d-4248-8949-628f42c999dc= %40isocpp.org.
------=_Part_2800_1482505948.1490891139645-- ------=_Part_2799_847978691.1490891139645-- .