220 32302 article Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eyal Rozenberg Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Has it been proposed to allow "template <...>" to apply to multiple declarations/definitions? Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 20:52:41 +0200 Lines: 59 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <0f4715ef-223b-4d28-8381-d7a43b93d792@isocpp.org> <701a4af0-ba41-4546-b7db-e653a14392a0@isocpp.org> <53267650-79b8-431a-abd4-0d0d93991645@isocpp.org> <58FF63C9.7040202@gmail.com> <1b4adafd-e4b8-e5a8-4d58-035fc7cdaff0@technion.ac.il> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1493923970 10011 195.159.176.226 (4 May 2017 18:52:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 18:52:50 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDHKZN7LR4ARBAHRVXEAKGQE3NMGVWY@isocpp.org Thu May 04 20:52:45 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-lf0-f72.google.com ([209.85.215.72]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d6Lro-0002UW-0r for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Thu, 04 May 2017 20:52:44 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-lf0-f72.google.com with SMTP id q197sf5497550lfe.5 for ; Thu, 04 May 2017 11:52:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isocpp-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-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=tZWOlFqMaywyEcPNhuKOGJ+uHpQUhmksoa01WMCCjMc=; b=UpI+vLOPvhhLUEUbnnZwKwGIrT5a5hlK9298ZzCDm0Jk93DysX9dcVgT4168VLR3my ByivCKoXepzs+SkKpb+g7oL7Gi0oE4yH7MJpikEmLLdBJecClwWxHJnWSF4HjtJ7v3qB Yq9vs9SGa4cvWIlNKfulPH1xhMMILQiFaF1aH0V0xfErtV1lOmNmrxYBQWbNfIImPzc7 r0TpQOR+R0wqHiCrLl37a9ITWCNXfy7Il0F/UMcxAJuH3hliKiP2KUokeBYFiqK2RK/Q c3lPGOLHmLht5RSqUr5LYas1J3QZLZBG0OdWlsrq2o1kavF8bS4/UQAn56XVrunP8Ppg MSvA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-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=tZWOlFqMaywyEcPNhuKOGJ+uHpQUhmksoa01WMCCjMc=; b=iaf69J0IKexMhHumkLAuEEqiT/G2G9FW9cp4GcTlwjYctbXIBdUJ+k11zIWDOJkvyV CfNhyEkpG5TNoN/6PdTfNkUvOiZD8jk1O1PdpPfjyxZ41Mu4YOFsLvVL9rsA1h+twL+Y K527wC5xerQ3HkXSqC2Bpq5XLcALyQKeVizE4niQYyWlR8i0spQo1nWgFpF/SmXVlCjb 2ztb6pjNprqO5wOkRr0x+h/jPNEM4epgMzSIND7YPNHw8BAPrcai4BVs9NTe3I+u9Oru cj0u4ER3VcZSf7y3SwuLTeixt+/EsiO4JD6CihlgoIAbJ6RECpukt/djqUzCKpJHrYxt 4Alw== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4UHvPlJJJI38jGQ49JjKiDt20njcy2b75SSq24+4egqVt0u94U r99ZhU5hya95nw== X-Received: by 10.25.56.8 with SMTP id f8mr4195757lfa.13.1493923969636; Thu, 04 May 2017 11:52:49 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.28.5.193 with SMTP id 184ls429852wmf.21.canary-gmail; Thu, 04 May 2017 11:52:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.80.215.155 with SMTP id w27mr8404444edi.70.1493923968211; Thu, 04 May 2017 11:52:48 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from fester.cwi.nl (fester.cwi.nl. [192.16.191.27]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 18si2290230edt.85.2017.05.04.11.52.48 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 04 May 2017 11:52:48 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of srs0=qxr7h=4k=technion.ac.il=eyalroz@cwi.nl designates 192.16.191.27 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.16.191.27; Original-Received: from fester.cwi.nl (fester.cwi.nl [192.16.191.27]) by fester.cwi.nl (8.14.4/8.12.3) with ESMTP id v44Iqlu3023825; Thu, 4 May 2017 20:52:47 +0200 Original-Received: from [192.168.2.2] (ip565d4370.direct-adsl.nl [86.93.67.112] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by fester.cwi.nl (8.14.4/8.12.3) with ESMTP id v44Iqkoe023823 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 4 May 2017 20:52:47 +0200 In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: eyalroz@technion.ac.il X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of srs0=qxr7h=4k=technion.ac.il=eyalroz@cwi.nl designates 192.16.191.27 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=SRS0=qXr7H=4K=technion.ac.il=eyalroz@cwi.nl 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:32302 Archived-At: I see what you mean. I don't actually have a good comeback for this concern. Unless... unless this would make the two functions be instantiated together or not at all. But probably that's going a bit too far. I dunno, I guess it's a foil then. On 04/05/17 18:18, Lee Howes wrote: > I like the class namespace proposal. I've often wished for such a thing > as a clean way of separating interface from implementation in template code. > > I'm a little less keen on this proposal because I share the concern that > when I see: > template { > void foo(T param); > void bar(T param); > } > > My brain wants to assume that those Ts are the same. > > Whether that matters is open to question, and depends substantially on > whether such a fact would ever be expected to be visible. It may matter > with separate compilation. If I have the above in a header, then in one > compilation unit: > template { > void foo(T param) { do something with param; } > void bar(T param) { do something with param; } > } > > something() { > foo(3); > } > > It feels natural if I instantiate any one of these on an explicit type, > I should be able to link against any of them. I don't think that's a > reasonable assumption, but natural enough that it could lead to > confusion.Using the same name but with a syntax that clearly denotes > independence is a very different form implicit relation, and I think > easier to explain. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/topic/std-proposals/1c8_Fa3Rj44/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/CAJH_FNVebzbcf-iME1unNM8MNEx2TtEnJCRtXamz769TReqYGw%40mail.gmail.com > . -- 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/b909e7d9-8caf-9ba0-602c-57e968f0af2b%40technion.ac.il. .