220 36512 <4ab0ef05-5d80-441d-905e-7d25b53f7379@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Nicol Bolas Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: operator[](...) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 08:33:08 -0800 (PST) Lines: 110 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <4ab0ef05-5d80-441d-905e-7d25b53f7379@isocpp.org> References: <8bbeac1f-f698-4e49-9e1f-4cb1ab389b09@isocpp.org> <3b13beef-4a63-1315-c11d-07ba04e6f9bd@gmail.com> <4d35c71c-cdc0-45de-976e-2f70b20695c0@isocpp.org> <5a504df3-7632-4035-9f94-7c72f0d094af@isocpp.org> <35b73d9f-8920-4282-927e-7c2f06c2b49c@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_8555_596030952.1515256388207" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1515256276 20632 195.159.176.226 (6 Jan 2018 16:31:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 16:31:16 +0000 (UTC) To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCEKFTV6ZUMBBRPUYPJAKGQE4WTG33Q@isocpp.org Sat Jan 06 17:31:11 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-vk0-f70.google.com ([209.85.213.70]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eXrND-0004na-7Y for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 17:31:07 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-vk0-f70.google.com with SMTP id y127sf4405366vkg.17 for ; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 08:33:10 -0800 (PST) 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=7HUmO5efLF051KSXhePQWdJM3awDoFnz587yYMdhum0=; b=oJJhII9CO6jqSMGbeBHmqW3YxymCtvDk4U6AVrZKXa/Intm6dsGjk7uKCBVm0OChMV /G+rSuZTAQ3+fkTrRGKNKWBsuymXaDJFIlSx4RUlLz5lKiJzE5NDrvWYJZQ+Ux5Wdpcr lma92SLwqtxZhUrXfEuuIMGfhySr7SNzN0PREtqIYXZDQsJphYqSL7x1RhJ3OdnuEHuY TF9ME8BaCudx5SlDpElntOc8AtP5Mk1ibHMJjYzdOVqZMq+cPU1QScddSIdxPn1i6R2i jCslKob2Jd41DTlsSwyJEDS1x2H/p1cSGNQJwvXL8wbujm610ZTpey6Y8TQyY4fddB2P nhNg== 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=7HUmO5efLF051KSXhePQWdJM3awDoFnz587yYMdhum0=; b=brKJgB/VY66XeT8eN7+dXXo6fGnBm3njxQT3s0W8Fr6nJ5TmjftQ9KFc6H7uIb833K tATh8fIbNBdwiY2giIUNgnBnX/3vw2FMbru3IKppLZVQJuxsGiLWH1Y0LC++JWfKq61d 6Uj9aoRiTkE4RhdGxmK9Ybi8+NROMkMOoOxzVbeG9nauo1SqntNZhb7zgTa4f06gjb5+ avZVNb/+edmkDKQ+OShybGj0OP2b8TgSOsxeDLK7v3oJ0JbOzXWslbGptiIHver+FziU qnMgq8m+bkmSU9tFkpdEPDEvLJXdsFbxm6ziwlkG4FprdAkdfkZ97GT8QWxLAUqd8IxB 3aaQ== 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=7HUmO5efLF051KSXhePQWdJM3awDoFnz587yYMdhum0=; b=Gcrsd2sef5Lgnwuiz30nqp803yF5XWk1U/wgctqR15/kradNEyyn9pacWEF17WK+2A 5MiI2Odq+Xa5hhGAgkMALDtVmZKqKfbwxxmqk7pbwwXgoX/0/2a/0gS7kOAUMCIIzGg3 Bkp694jgx2TYwJBF79B0HnC+aqZLkecFZGlg2/fYfNew46PrX6Pr1xGE6E5NDhHjbGqS gceSizLK0pXqFhASQ2ySLawsGW4608vCdO9II/Ck0zyys9FDfaMohf2NCtL7ZD4Gqhqa KdQ9VctvZ13v8UlN2sK5i0q9G6watk3Ya0mkTPfjBK0Yd5fyrpsf3SoOK3lIsfZ6CIw8 ISAw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLaQZDazgEtOAog+mOF11Evc3YgUyh79b5CaJAeboibhce77NuP bWs4fmZ4lHG25lnFxwRhjXHQLQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosEIdWphF6b7jKcbxwjgyFfgEH+f3DTuG//hcevd00RhqcZCO0yl5hXG/bzAATwV1/uOm2nwQ== X-Received: by 10.176.48.239 with SMTP id d15mr3378158uam.64.1515256390424; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 08:33:10 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.31.174.150 with SMTP id x144ls1751188vke.2.gmail; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 08:33:08 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.31.167.138 with SMTP id q132mr649682vke.2.1515256388845; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 08:33:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: jmckesson@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: std-proposals@isocpp.org 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:36512 Archived-At: ------=_Part_8555_596030952.1515256388207 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_8556_840186000.1515256388207" ------=_Part_8556_840186000.1515256388207 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Saturday, January 6, 2018 at 10:53:33 AM UTC-5, Jake Arkinstall wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Nicol Bolas > wrote: > >> Are you* seriously* telling me that people would use C++ for these >> applications, but are warded off just because they can't use `[]` and would >> have to resort to `()`? I find myself doubtful that any person is picking >> languages based on trivial syntax like that. >> >> I think you're exaggerating the importance of this syntax. >> > > I agree with you that this is far from a reason to abandon the language. > That being said, it is still a part of the language that IMO is in need of > improvement, which is why we're here. > My overall point is this. We can all agree that `[1, 2]` would be ideal. But because this already has meaning in C++, we can't change it without going through a round of deprecation. So you'd be looking at 6-9 years before we could even add the language feature that lets us give `[1, 2]` the meaning we want. Is this feature worth that wait? Is it worth the effort of deprecating comma expressions in brackets? Or should we just encourage the use of alternatives? I say it'd be easier to add a language feature to allow `[{1, 2}]` to work on language arrays than to make `[1, 2]` work. Let's canonize that idiom by adding it to the language. That's something that could (in theory) happen in the C++20 time frame, since it doesn't break backwards compatibility. So you can either wait 6-9 years for perfection, or get something right now that is almost as good. -- 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/4ab0ef05-5d80-441d-905e-7d25b53f7379%40isocpp.org. ------=_Part_8556_840186000.1515256388207 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Saturday, January 6, 2018 at 10:53:33 AM UTC-5, Jake Ar= kinstall wrote:

On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Nicol= Bolas <jmck...@gmail.com> wrote:
Are you seriously telling me that people would use C++ for = these applications, but are warded off just because they can't use `[]`= and would have to resort to `()`? I find myself doubtful that any person i= s picking languages based on trivial syntax like that.

I think you're exaggerating the importance of thi= s syntax.

I agree with you that this is fa= r from a reason to abandon the language. That being said, it is still a par= t of the language that IMO is in need of improvement, which is why we'r= e here.

My overall = point is this.

We can all agree that `[1, 2]` woul= d be ideal. But because this already has meaning in C++, we can't chang= e it without going through a round of deprecation. So you'd be looking = at 6-9 years before we could even add the language feature that lets us giv= e `[1, 2]` the meaning we want.

Is this feature wo= rth that wait? Is it worth the effort of deprecating comma expressions in b= rackets? Or should we just encourage the use of alternatives?
I say it'd be easier to add a language feature to allow `[{= 1, 2}]` to work on language arrays than to make `[1, 2]` work. Let's ca= nonize that idiom by adding it to the language. That's something that c= ould (in theory) happen in the C++20 time frame, since it doesn't break= backwards compatibility.

So you can either wait 6= -9 years for perfection, or get something right now that is almost as good.=

--
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/4ab0ef05-5d80-441d-905e-7d25b53f7379= %40isocpp.org.
------=_Part_8556_840186000.1515256388207-- ------=_Part_8555_596030952.1515256388207-- .