220 36926 article Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Jake Arkinstall Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: String interpolation Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 16:05:43 +0000 Lines: 85 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <356d5835-f1bf-4699-94f5-0b2d3d0b9c0e@isocpp.org> <25CCF885-86AD-4D51-8F5C-C46376D34DE0@gmail.com> <4890431.TR9UepuQra@tjmaciei-mobl1> <1cdb6300-7397-46d7-bce9-62e6e8dac40b@isocpp.org> <4bce681e-e729-4124-9322-69291fdb6678@isocpp.org> <758ab0a7-8946-43d4-b2ae-5a4acea11c20@isocpp.org> <01057924-056c-4ee5-a19c-e070d053b982@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1141670ad039460565426766" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1518710652 16442 195.159.176.226 (15 Feb 2018 16:04:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 16:04:12 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDCZX3WUUQFRB4G7S3KAKGQET53TFQI@isocpp.org Thu Feb 15 17:04:08 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-vk0-f71.google.com ([209.85.213.71]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1emM0y-0003li-78 for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 17:04:04 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-vk0-f71.google.com with SMTP id o202sf72687vkd.23 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 08:06:10 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1518710770; cv=pass; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=liUzTK6zVh62WZO1MTU8ivmwa5R0SYyBSHwDQmH1g+pXSOP2tcrzW1K1tw3V4EWHN0 dBC3ruBraHs5UNxr62xUe5dVnN1OAGnjjKG5DREHPZtlfHqSP40/YXlA6TkLdtjzzkK4 MPMRued3nVxaPsBoeObJH/8TSodcBa7Ng3iUTfrMaU80R72FZQzcmpWX5xA4RKG8qsLI DcDrFlfovROTNTMX1bN5EFBxXUpP1JYPL0QkTCLD3XJPdToxTYaEjOfQBh/ArFiVTmKd rijSvGomiJnWzTz/1J7ltlQKGm664W955KqoiriZbCcgMSEqMhahvGn4iIlz8KX7psvn h2SQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:reply-to:to:subject:message-id:date :from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:arc-authentication-results :arc-message-signature:dkim-signature:arc-authentication-results; bh=5OF9PrBaxguCOFxzHP6n5sp8NxbgC9w0Kl71uD/BSrk=; b=MSyYa1H6jLUamsMDbuebWU0reQQXdJl3QbAMX9nujzFVDUro3LVPhs/bZtt6Eds7ae XXUQ1NDbSz3jWk648U2lasgJAw7tynQk/xk3kWksDUTisgjUWmJV372EQOINPsYCTGqY Wps2NYhcLC8+02GNh9GABwpAZPiZKg9pM++1FywNSsoWgL810e4tpWnELFKP184kaDva lbREZxQjnRWod3PRDx6EM9O34oevemTYYXQvFPySnC66KEBstZvy8rIFeR4tiXBkpqdF Dfrj0wHnpkdlhj0qnUU9XdeUTC+uLHFqvbfsGV+HG/85t92K8gyii25NAVShppyMwhC1 lzkg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=iwbIveKR; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jake.arkinstall@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jake.arkinstall@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com 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:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=5OF9PrBaxguCOFxzHP6n5sp8NxbgC9w0Kl71uD/BSrk=; b=n1o+9fXLM0z960EGYLyVPJN3WOl64j+OW2GknfSRfhPmG5VlRv1O6D0GXoyj4ylrm+ 5WbLyTTvVo2rkA/RSNPfkWqe3CyqBl6/kZ32lBx9GV6wyfOOAi8NtzSD3bIaXSgXMCU/ Q33aVwba+ZApHhFD31TRIkIuQ1mXmc/rie4RM4Y6zTSRUNFW9EXO7jdloATAxr8SQ3EO 2mQrcXUT3oXa2FOT6oMgMUi9K083ueiudM+aOHGO8PyxAmJKgCCpD/6ytkd2jfZLA2vx MyXy7Sld/xp3sPvmDlhWAPez4KVmT+e2daBWDJpskCYCzyGJhoTgcqaNEjjcXnrKZKP2 HesQ== 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=5OF9PrBaxguCOFxzHP6n5sp8NxbgC9w0Kl71uD/BSrk=; b=ti2MNAQ19UH4bE+BEbNOSRAuzfVLBIa0xIP8sEsO02TUyvbYG+HNNANVKWT6F6UwTc fU68B2F8efg0HW2nZzDlUUGHClq7j+qTz4v9yzlf90w6E8mUH3jbxsf7DPkQl/Yvjijm TM+tKMHJA9pteKTYxb9TybQ8qOxSWkNU+lq3SjFFw/hhS9U9l54/q1RZnS9QmQkIKS8t buKmEAR9db0zjMWJUUwvunoNmTJ2Q5t5lVS8GVIm47XB3toe/NgqMlf+Owr6stZkHo2N WuhbzEBkWZ8oaR/67AsEH2+1g3xXhraeoU1q8uspo0EBOZBGm/3HDOSK4NVNoavvo3SV COQw== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBqizRnpJiYHq6W1xNw1e+UmqgCU6tKNhKdmapeX85i8ST05Rgb 0/MbPGE0CEN2WOtv+j9112Y8wg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226d6HCceJG2aBJbW6iTUEb/KPHaaJSqeb4fGwDQm0Ik/nRTHVMMWiueZ1YVphUJ/aX1z81BSw== X-Received: by 10.159.50.104 with SMTP id y37mr4108558uad.22.1518710769956; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 08:06:09 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.31.95.142 with SMTP id t136ls86309vkb.20.gmail; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 08:06:08 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.31.173.133 with SMTP id w127mr2561389vke.66.1518710768226; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 08:06:08 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1518710768; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Oeldm50bMUZkx9tAyDMjqjqxXAxZtsDAd537pXyhEjYosmY3AcFyTqwXiJZLkgAfhC r9ecWaxNLtdUqyqaZGJK9WTRJZhpQxVuZ58vBGrS83ZU5HudX8vizGqePUMIVQj9we8R K//+iLBY99d0iFPAbHN+wrMZipXksHQzO7Dj6VKTPxDFU3OasxcYrsoPRCT7mtBEZEe4 UPllfmSJ64Ow/dy7QFT9bCPk7DLVOVK/seg3BV+FxQeH8NXlSfeZTg3uqKQs3iyC4ZaA IKgo+D8Wkwi6D3wdoJ2+rwi/ElLerybNS7wYbKI1HS4WtIjSH9p1QVfYpG3uTqqWSk8p VEXw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :dkim-signature:arc-authentication-results; bh=nBmXRvTlX8tv+rp+fY9ZW9hs68rSxg2qAq5cIlD2exA=; b=imA50FUMfipCnho9Rk3byn1cCqgsJN5CD1dsWpHnP33TeAdhTD8L72j8kEZaJkkBdX LuEbewsifyoRX6w+qm00eVK/6JZInjm2sB4ZTigXBBq8mX99HjBYvNBmnrfr5SrUTJgg pZWHZA7ItWBYGcLuGXNmGq/9hKMhWOhD/F0H8Kjr269UgNjLzHMfdOTMtFnpdZdidexT +Mit1XoHGquG8GrkxOLvnGGWaPOImoglinqClL7tntEjT5xd5zfuTrIRmqHwWEbkS8Xx u/5E+ASVQFmyv4A07+JNwd2rs+u9Jct8+gDQxaunF9/uaJUJuelsaqkw5RCB9mVjtOf5 EHEg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=iwbIveKR; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jake.arkinstall@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jake.arkinstall@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Original-Received: from mail-sor-f41.google.com (mail-sor-f41.google.com. [209.85.220.41]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id 202sor6813711vko.5.2018.02.15.08.06.08 for (Google Transport Security); Thu, 15 Feb 2018 08:06:08 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jake.arkinstall@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.41; X-Received: by 10.31.166.82 with SMTP id p79mr2468340vke.81.1518710767497; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 08:06:07 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.168.151.129 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 08:05:43 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.168.151.129 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 08:05:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <01057924-056c-4ee5-a19c-e070d053b982@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: jake.arkinstall@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=iwbIveKR; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jake.arkinstall@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jake.arkinstall@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=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:36926 Archived-At: --001a1141670ad039460565426766 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On 15 Feb 2018 15:51, "Nicol Bolas" wrote: Taking a literal (or possibly constexpr string?) I was wondering whether it makes sense to even describe these things as literals, given that they aren't literal and given that they aren't intended to actually be stored in memory in any way. But in terms of constexpr strings, I guess these things themselves can be built up by other methods - I'm not sure if this makes sense in compilation, though; I'm under the impression that the expression itself would likely need to be processed before the constexpr methods themselves could be evaluated (especially given that they could themselves utilise interpolation). I could be wrong. I think, at this point, interpolation is a bad word - it made sense in the initial form, but now this has generalised we might want a new word for it. (or possibly arbitrary expressions?) This wouldn't be so much of a problem, because those expressions (other than their declarations) don't need to be completely understood when the [insert better name for interpolation] is performed - just the resulting type is needed. -- 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/CAC%2B0CCM0SLuJk3GPA-zqb_X7z-kY_tNF1iLnOocLJwP9eErnLQ%40mail.gmail.com. --001a1141670ad039460565426766 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 15 Feb 2018 15:51, "Nicol Bolas" <jmckesson@gmail.com> wrote:
Taking a literal (or possibly constexpr string?)
=

I was wonde= ring whether it makes sense to even describe these things as literals, give= n that they aren't literal and given that they aren't intended to a= ctually be stored in memory in any way. But in terms of constexpr strings, = I guess these things themselves can be built up by other methods - I'm = not sure if this makes sense in compilation, though; I'm under the impr= ession that the expression itself would likely need to be processed before = the constexpr methods themselves could be evaluated (especially given that = they could themselves utilise interpolation). I could be wrong.

I think, at this point, interpolati= on is a bad word - it made sense in the initial form, but now this has gene= ralised we might want a new word for it.

<= div dir=3D"auto">
(or possib= ly arbitrary expressions?)

This wouldn't be so much of a p= roblem, because those expressions (other than their declarations) don't= need to be completely understood when the [insert better name for interpol= ation] is performed - just the resulting type is needed.

--
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/CAC%2B0CCM0SLuJ= k3GPA-zqb_X7z-kY_tNF1iLnOocLJwP9eErnLQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--001a1141670ad039460565426766-- .