220 33499 <953fc0eb-bfc5-4a28-bcc8-44d5415cb6b3@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Nicol Bolas Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: P0329R0 falls short for designated initialisers Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 08:55:47 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 83 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <953fc0eb-bfc5-4a28-bcc8-44d5415cb6b3@isocpp.org> References: <4892340.tBhI7hZKOg@tjmaciei-mobl1> <772cf8d1-4709-4d8a-a053-02c037520d32@isocpp.org> <3444585.8l8KRfDAXt@tjmaciei-mobl1> <1aa71e66-0261-48e2-870a-46f12e84a9a6@isocpp.org> <7fadd616-1a18-44b0-b734-d78bc71247d3@isocpp.org> <15fb1958-a057-49a8-a92d-f51900f1e2fd@isocpp.org> <9c585bf0-be74-4031-b90a-7aa7307a49cf@isocpp.org> <47ff2787-3422-4ef4-857c-b4399fcd5ab2@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_1040_936716138.1501602947487" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1501602953 14962 195.159.176.226 (1 Aug 2017 15:55:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:55:53 +0000 (UTC) To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCEKFTV6ZUMBBBGJQLGAKGQEICJ3OZQ@isocpp.org Tue Aug 01 17:55:48 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-pg0-f71.google.com ([74.125.83.71]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dcZWJ-0003P3-Ir for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Aug 2017 17:55:43 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-pg0-f71.google.com with SMTP id u199sf21236818pgb.13 for ; Tue, 01 Aug 2017 08:55:49 -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 :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=KXtwngPl7orKjMxtQFpeAV3PT3Db9/Q5C0jspQz4onE=; b=FMgL8xUY3H1IbDmrfgYpiosOtOqDUHxDJc7fBIoX7JEBeEs3fUqnZ3DYPApXAUpDG4 QDJCBk13k4O0V8UPiqlAiSs4rFeJ/4E+TOK2o9BRAuWhY9qcZOcgHDPdYKqnUq8rQpSb 6C3nb0z44eoXCK7JtFTFsPjyBmjbxkQNrh/Y76vIxcSJzLnALitKtQhjS0yR41qKJYDt ySzPyvRrVOB8LGgleuzNHtX6iKFmFw0lKQHpNbsuT97AvfxSxIQiZ633hxMJxob5KZ2G TyEeBev4FbYHmP6gqprGvgOWbAu5LS2xmFssH2qhgHxkn+7FWW6ciB8vz5I+Zmvh7wPS uwxw== 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 :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=KXtwngPl7orKjMxtQFpeAV3PT3Db9/Q5C0jspQz4onE=; b=PHzMZKU2onF2zH5pmAME3KmMWL+AmPwT67MU5ZMjJ60Jz1LZRlP9D99xHghbkq09YU opuu/w3LM8o2w3sYUOHFwuqXLowyVPjOEhy35cr0NSVcCgQpotwJcs67nNpmjJZxInCd JWamBK2cnF78/35H5E6hdVA3kXQZbUIr2hjExVDx7SWfq5JkrTMtxBFQqgoqY1ebCUGN OwNnlKz27eavmVYDukeTnbBT/+XxjGX0WZOfI5pT96I1SsIR51vw2IcKUL9Tof1UU4La WVJMcEqFyndnKfYaHJPHQTNTGVCavdaZJSQzoULjD+ASEF4Q7mfdQrM+sswDOpmKytc2 fZ0w== 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=KXtwngPl7orKjMxtQFpeAV3PT3Db9/Q5C0jspQz4onE=; b=ZNrCFAENSsljMWpaYrVjuA/CSIA3gpC7k7q7fpVH43R4lLhqSRDUYqfhbf3QqnB9Ag RuwihZYtYlCn7xjGiNOCgI7ugHw9GrR0VMMEXR6kkYkdky9EsJ3hwUQELTxFupW/g4qD SLj3kQtPoVcB+mJOISS+zj1EOHdcQ5jKLsmZDPA4zb49D3yik1+i22NQPtS0jlqskJIG GPoC10uIQaRglMK1u3/kRP3PMljS99gsCuc3v+4EhIYiYkxmpR1agTDzYwzm9HS929ia OHzTt5Bk8QFFju2ijw7kf4G3ogtL2IJRK8Q0QUGMR5dEnFWEBChhAghPGgw/WDC4gdkI qwZg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111kzM5ox0SnybPPJTpSEdHf6xPJuZbMQBOYgEhLEHdg2tiYjbEQ aIiN+Ue0FLI6XTWs X-Received: by 10.99.147.3 with SMTP id b3mr15379643pge.178.1501602949209; Tue, 01 Aug 2017 08:55:49 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.107.12.201 with SMTP id 70ls11022421iom.22.gmail; Tue, 01 Aug 2017 08:55:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.31.160.13 with SMTP id j13mr23105vke.25.1501602947960; Tue, 01 Aug 2017 08:55:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <47ff2787-3422-4ef4-857c-b4399fcd5ab2@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: jmckesson@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:33499 Archived-At: ------=_Part_1040_936716138.1501602947487 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1041_1182851968.1501602947487" ------=_Part_1041_1182851968.1501602947487 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, Victor Dyachenko wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 6:47:08 PM UTC+3, Nicol Bolas wrote: >> >> But if you allow designated initializers to be specified out of member >> declaration order, it now stops on another "simple and universal rule": >> >> *Expression in braced-init-lists are sequenced in the order they appear* >> >> So, if you allow unordered designated initializers, which rule wins? >> Either the members will be initialized out of order, or the expressions >> will be evaluated out of order. >> > > Which rule wins now in case of constructors init-list? Apply the same > rule here. > Member initializers don't follow braced-init-list rules, and they never did. My point is that "apply the same rule here" is to *violate* the braced-init-list rule. Member initializers never had a contrary rule to be broken. You're going to have to break one rule or the other, and I don't see why we should want either to be violated. -- 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/953fc0eb-bfc5-4a28-bcc8-44d5415cb6b3%40isocpp.org. ------=_Part_1041_1182851968.1501602947487 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 11:50:51 AM UTC-4, Victor Dy= achenko wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 6:47:08 PM UTC+3, Nicol Bolas wrote:
But if you allow desi= gnated initializers to be specified out of member declaration order, it now= stops on another "simple and universal rule":

Expressi= on in braced-init-lists are sequenced in the order they appear

= So, if you allow unordered designated initializers, which rule wins? Either= the members will be initialized out of order, or the expressions will be e= valuated out of order.

Which rule wins= now=C2=A0 in case of constructors init-list? Apply the same rule here.
=

Member initializers don't follow brac= ed-init-list rules, and they never did. My point is that "apply the sa= me rule here" is to violate the braced-init-list rule. Member i= nitializers never had a contrary rule to be broken.

You're going= to have to break one rule or the other, and I don't see why we should = want either to be violated.

--
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/953fc0eb-bfc5-4a28-bcc8-44d5415cb6b3= %40isocpp.org.
------=_Part_1041_1182851968.1501602947487-- ------=_Part_1040_936716138.1501602947487-- .