220 38752 <906c89da-61de-41ae-bf38-c2cf8ade77b9@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Nicol Bolas Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: The madness called "simple concepts syntax" Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:44:58 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 195 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <906c89da-61de-41ae-bf38-c2cf8ade77b9@isocpp.org> References: <19c57a60-e883-4474-b106-7ff2ebc122ee@isocpp.org> <83850f66-75f2-4497-86f3-afd5fa91a067@isocpp.org> <5574e3bb-3c4d-4459-a956-3fb77e26d050@isocpp.org> <3c5f8766-9ef4-46be-a9c2-7b5f9c7f5ee7@isocpp.org> <57272b82-fbc7-490a-b332-73a2deaedac5@isocpp.org> <02c84409-d59c-480c-b33f-ced5cdd4fff2@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_30654_819060810.1529513098671" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1529512974 19250 195.159.176.226 (20 Jun 2018 16:42:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 16:42:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: mihailnajdenov@gmail.com To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCEKFTV6ZUMBBC4JVLMQKGQEKBHIGFY@isocpp.org Wed Jun 20 18:42:50 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-yw0-f197.google.com ([209.85.161.197]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fVgC1-0004uD-Qg for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 18:42:50 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-yw0-f197.google.com with SMTP id z65-v6sf100219ywa.14 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:45:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isocpp-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc: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=SwlE6VAPa0h8Hp1Cy2yofGe/FFLVrbHOTEOMZHOvESM=; b=Ttejz0fIljUUR0l8Q65iOC0VRPnVQQhgOqS41ZNjJj2SLaDekACR0EtZM68fcfEJ2P OVLjp28Ls1gms9OUVd5mLO3PX5IZg6FUcgJGpWB2Dy6eZNYSpNj9CYH2fg0izJaDAH9i iPOB3qwyaeRvXoOEknx8b10MfQpG/4zGxvLqEkY+0GahjkgvgqOdfLLblW1C0rAJTB6s L6eC35NaCdI47/HgweKy/c16iJ5AhTj1/kPMnbKvwXI99h2LqDR1y55OMVl0AQGfXmhT CBmEbkXQ89JPhqr0/LoQRCaSom0lRgoFtTVwNnp79U3m3nNW1QheTHcnbHZp/Q6Ffnhm BVLg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc: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=SwlE6VAPa0h8Hp1Cy2yofGe/FFLVrbHOTEOMZHOvESM=; b=eHqbDXUcRwD8QRcFR14aDa9sfvZkOU/XZjNHJeek5WCIOycaR/L0vNU8/UvJMA0qos 8/fJL2WEXBYX/6udeddULoyUKasOwmkHGaMHHHgQWXyfLySWwbJVgh4HiPhrd29wdQat v7UoEzHWZvAE+txyg1X0eCTUpC/XN4YY3nqQJIS3fuBql05Q7HkhvX3EEELVnqIUJTh/ CLQuUbLS9SnWDhNWfdHLkq2Jix5fnZpPjY64EJz5xEcGGIvsqFibAx793ZaK3ziWrSdi KR3DvaKrnSMGCAtpBm7UnDphKzGCZWIeGkhG392swaaemW+/dc6taqDbbDIV5Vd1VaRr 03ng== 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:cc: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=SwlE6VAPa0h8Hp1Cy2yofGe/FFLVrbHOTEOMZHOvESM=; b=qjaz+ixJE7SQEAASwwhnPDfwnJVgy7K7gs9w3TsGTakkyysku++pdwyaAJa93XpL6i uDAsuSrxW/G/EXf4f+46F3mW5XtMO07DVUF5Ij6WWldYCp0Iiq31Kf/8j/y6R65dUxJN V1rgjwmosuwNqiXisNccR7N0Kz0SojsfCYloLdiNFm1uuTeOMXKenvtjmrCyG3jcdj8C j/n47bZrNbkjSzpu/sjsC99pqe6SyjvJU3806ZSgC8K4SHm7ceWomSEpfCd0Rhix9UGY sX6iMJJNuAwMvFooM13RZtgpuGE9NA8CVpYBsLfQ0n+/nvCfB/1m7Vn2X9Wl7h9bCMSQ MXhA== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3ReyLbvdeide6hKH58JW8tsVXjozY/jgwNIAcm13iSHUNcDuA/ YIrjkseEtvSn2vga5rBOzekIyw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLH+DC0e3BArEfgfWhYL9+8RVo0xjl+dccnCQzNuGrM+GANSK3S4zemhV2b6tJBHICqGnnoEg== X-Received: by 2002:a81:3903:: with SMTP id g3-v6mr5738162ywa.49.1529513100535; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:45:00 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 2002:a81:3157:: with SMTP id x84-v6ls518904ywx.32.gmail; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:44:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a0d:cb58:: with SMTP id n85-v6mr1105836ywd.5.1529513099356; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:44:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <02c84409-d59c-480c-b33f-ced5cdd4fff2@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-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:38752 Archived-At: ------=_Part_30654_819060810.1529513098671 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_30655_1199753039.1529513098672" ------=_Part_30655_1199753039.1529513098672 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 2:46:56 AM UTC-4, mihailn...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 1:32:55 AM UTC+3, Nicol Bolas wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 4:57:07 PM UTC-4, mihailn...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 10:15:35 PM UTC+3, Nicol Bolas wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 2:48:17 PM UTC-4, mihailn...@gmail.com >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In any case Concepts-sans-terse is not frozen. And that is what >>>>> worries me. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Are you also worried that contracts aren't frozen either? Or that >>>> ranges isn't frozen? Or `operator<=>` isn't frozen yet? >>>> >>>> They're not frozen because C++20 is not frozen. That's how standards >>>> are developed. Concepts is decoupled from terse syntax; one is in, and the >>>> other is out. >>>> >>> > I *wish* that was the case, but "the other" is not 'out' - it is still > actively pursued. Hence this topic. > > My wish is to have this discussion after C++ 23 instead. > Your earlier statement suggested that you were concerned that terse syntax was interferring with the rest of concepts being shipped: "Even worse - to have the terse lambda blocking normal lambda. Because we are there with Concepts." But now, you're saying that you're not concerned with when the rest of concepts is shipped. You're merely concerned that terse syntax *exists at all*. That people are working on trying to get a feature into the standard that you don't want. Let me put it a different way. Do you *really* want to have to write this to have a conceptualized lambda: [](C1 &c1, const C2 &c2) {...} Rather than [](Concept &c1, const Concept &c2) {...} Or [](Concept{} &c1, const Concept{} &c2) {...} Why is the first one better than the second or third? What is all of that verbiage providing? -- 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/906c89da-61de-41ae-bf38-c2cf8ade77b9%40isocpp.org. ------=_Part_30655_1199753039.1529513098672 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 2:46:56 AM UTC-4, mihailn..= ..@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 1:32:55 AM UTC+3, Nicol Bolas wrote:
On Tuesday, June 19, = 2018 at 4:57:07 PM UTC-4, mihailn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 10:1= 5:35 PM UTC+3, Nicol Bolas wrote:
On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 2:48:17 PM UTC-4, mihailn...= @gmail.com wrote:
In any case Concepts-sans-terse is not frozen. And that is what worries= me.

Are you also worried that = contracts aren't frozen either? Or that ranges isn't frozen? Or `op= erator<=3D>` isn't frozen yet?

They'= re not frozen because C++20 is not frozen. That's how standards are dev= eloped. Concepts is decoupled from terse syntax; one is in, and the other i= s out.
=
=

I *wish* that was the case, but "the other" i= s not 'out' - it is still actively pursued. Hence this topic.
=

My wish is to have this discussion after C++ 23 instead= ..

Your earlier statement su= ggested that you were concerned that terse syntax was interferring with the= rest of concepts being shipped: "Even worse - to have the terse lambd= a blocking normal lambda. Because we are there with Concepts."

But now, you're saying that you're not concerned = with when the rest of concepts is shipped. You're merely concerned that= terse syntax exists at all. That people are working on trying to ge= t a feature into the standard that you don't want.

=
Let me put it a different way. Do you really want to have to wr= ite this to have a conceptualized lambda:

[]<Concept C1, Concept C2>(C1 &c1<= /span>, const C2 &c2) {...}

R= ather than=

[]= (Concept &c1, const Concept &a= mp;c2) {...}

Or

[](Concept{} &a= mp;c1, const Concept{} &c2) {...}

Why is the first one better than the second or = third? What is all of that verbiage providing?

--
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/906c89da-61de-41ae-bf38-c2cf8ade77b9= %40isocpp.org.
------=_Part_30655_1199753039.1529513098672-- ------=_Part_30654_819060810.1529513098671-- .