220 40854 <46a88b60-7f08-45fb-bbad-30f5be27d28f@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Balog Pal Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Named parameters Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 08:17:26 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 180 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <46a88b60-7f08-45fb-bbad-30f5be27d28f@isocpp.org> References: <00c801d46faf$dc525450$94f6fcf0$@gmail.com> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_901_282851862.1541171846206" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1541171727 27120 195.159.176.226 (2 Nov 2018 15:15:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 15:15:27 +0000 (UTC) To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDXOZDWV5QORBB6V6HPAKGQEUIFVQYA@isocpp.org Fri Nov 02 16:15:23 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-yb1-f198.google.com ([209.85.219.198]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gIbAM-0006pZ-K9 for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Nov 2018 16:15:19 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-yb1-f198.google.com with SMTP id q124-v6sf1531874ybg.18 for ; Fri, 02 Nov 2018 08:17:29 -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=JBFSQf8HAQi7QkX/0KUV0+SHPB1H3buwhNPBMjuk4C8=; b=BIcy2FRoFZ2HgBbMu6upbqbNdR5szdN+3eMm4r9ckK8dID1e+5g6v3xWt3IeKYzGym Xpi2X/9kWUMlViRmMNJFMbNZWTZi3jyYItV9zfhTJ1R+7J8Vu9aYnxKrVtV3D4HRQrui kHIhtZYQrh+xssJqXoqQxgIYsaPJhNjDPLSNvOdK4uKxjxM3Q3tDDL+p5qZmE1s/Z49C 19Qg/ANNRD5dhddWPlwDGzlNw8XF/CGiXEI0dsSZSMK3sGrc5Y/gi9e7OxNN3NXlDDcr H66IhMb6t0n2jVJH92bzBI2q2p5erzHptuQl4qp3PojlaHAc615ZQPd63SG/8YaGYqgv xsZA== 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=JBFSQf8HAQi7QkX/0KUV0+SHPB1H3buwhNPBMjuk4C8=; b=Tr2K9E9nDWRrmN8Otcjo+stpNtp3Sr5LwNh7SlyGhhQspaQcfKpjTd7V2TYd3vbkSu EeoZc2zKA26JFXiniQTDimRnLPlCPm2YmN+ZAIi5XyoBvzA6623xF/mbqNv+pE6JA9D8 szJURrsbXiNNbooN3FSrDUuz0KblF3nShL5cLT30Ayn4Yjv1VkGWveKYsC9UkLzjiPQf dPuMTf29Zek5y5ihZ/EHUUAc8ORn0RiyLXeGxX/gxiyOBkrCNC1yUKsVrO7yQKnZT/qY bNbKh395u4DFFr1cfoQi+7dytByhyKCgnb9wnef/9WbPklOT+nTvUtS1tTStpc2j84z8 g7mw== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJB5aG60inaerrMevf25Bo9LBe/1FKW0kTU95KNfTWyAJ4aro71 W7DTa2Y3kLyiwC1K+oC6x2FtWQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5ePTX2PlecG2Jas+SCjnLl7DYifIa1PeKC/4NS+Tru1XGaTuQNE+37VOnNFr/oY9WwZvWwbAg== X-Received: by 2002:a25:dac3:: with SMTP id n186-v6mr6937746ybf.83.1541171848796; Fri, 02 Nov 2018 08:17:28 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 2002:a81:5341:: with SMTP id h62-v6ls5785572ywb.3.gmail; Fri, 02 Nov 2018 08:17:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a81:5f83:: with SMTP id t125-v6mr151605ywb.3.1541171847020; Fri, 02 Nov 2018 08:17:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: pasa@lib.hu 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:40854 Archived-At: ------=_Part_901_282851862.1541171846206 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_902_234429908.1541171846206" ------=_Part_902_234429908.1541171846206 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2018. november 1., cs=C3=BCt=C3=B6rt=C3=B6k 23:13:14 UTC+1 id=C5=91pontban = Richard Hodges a=20 k=C3=B6vetkez=C5=91t =C3=ADrta: > > > > On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 16:51, Ville Voutilainen > wrote: > >> (...) If you want named parameters, >> >> 1) make them be declared, not automatically nameable >> 2) don't make it part of the ABI >> 3) don't try to introduce overloading by parameter name >> >> and you have a chance of getting most of what you want, for those who >> indeed want it. Try to insist on something different, >> and be prepared for getting what you have now, i.e. nothing. In case >> you insist on something different, then your claim >> that how to do it is obvious is, well, obviously false. >> >> > I think unfortunately you underscore my point - there is only negativity= =20 > in this response. The community (at least this part of it) wants progress= ,=20 > rather than reasons why progress is not possible. > Hmm. I'm almost hearing Ville saying hos usual "I'm just stating the FACT".= =20 The negativity is only your observation. Try to read the text as it was=20 put: as helpful guiding. If your aim is rally related to the functionality= =20 and its getting into C++, not just moaning or/or bashing the people who=20 contribute to the standard. The idea was discussed in public a lot and even at the committee level=20 several times. In great detail too. It did not progress because the=20 concerns were not addressed by the proposers, and the verdict was that the= =20 benefits fall short. It was not done out of sloth or malice, just through= =20 simple technical evaluation.=20 Above, Ville summarized the road that lead to the dead end, and even=20 pointed to directions where it DOES have a fighting chance. If you did your= =20 homework and read up all the history you'd probably arrived to similar=20 conclusions.=20 =20 > Not just with the triviality of named parameters. > Well, just reading the last discussion N4172_Named_Function_Arguments=20 discussion=20 =20 it is pretty far from trivial. Ant there is a lot more just following the= =20 links from posts 2 and 3 of this topic and their references.=20 It is currently not possible to express any more than the most basic intent= =20 > in C++. C++ remains, after 30 years, basically an auto-optimising macro= =20 > assembler. This is not good enough to survive the rigours of the modern= =20 > world. > Well, everyone is entitled to have their opinion, I know a plenty of folks= =20 who see it a different way.=20 --=20 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 e= mail 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/46a88b60-7f08-45fb-bbad-30f5be27d28f%40isocpp.or= g. ------=_Part_902_234429908.1541171846206 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2018. november 1., cs=C3=BCt=C3=B6rt=C3=B6k 23:13:= 14 UTC+1 id=C5=91pontban Richard Hodges a k=C3=B6vetkez=C5=91t =C3=ADrta:


On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 16:51, Ville Vou= tilainen <ville.vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
(...)=C2=A0 If you want named parameters,

1) make them be declared, not automatically nameable
2) don't make it part of the ABI
3) don't try to introduce overloading by parameter name

and you have a chance of getting most of what you want, for those who
indeed want it. Try to insist on something different,
and be prepared for getting what you have now, i.e. nothing. In case
you insist on something different, then your claim
that how to do it is obvious is, well, obviously false.


I think unfortunately you underscore m= y point - there is only negativity in this response. The community (at leas= t this part of it) wants progress, rather than reasons why progress is not = possible.

Hmm. I'm al= most hearing Ville saying hos usual "I'm just stating the FACT&quo= t;.

The negativity is only your observation. = Try to read the text as it was put: as helpful guiding.=C2=A0 If your aim i= s rally related to the functionality and its getting into C++, not just moa= ning or/or bashing the people who contribute to the standard.
The idea was discussed in public a lot and even at the committe= e level several times. In great detail too.=C2=A0 It did not progress becau= se the concerns were not addressed by the proposers, and the verdict was th= at the benefits fall short. It was not done out of sloth or malice, just th= rough simple technical evaluation.

Above, Vil= le summarized the road that lead to the dead end, and even pointed to direc= tions where it DOES have a fighting chance. If you did your homework and re= ad up all the history you'd probably arrived to similar conclusions.
=C2=A0
Not just = with the triviality of named parameters.

Well, just reading the last discussion N4172_Named_Function_Arguments discussion=C2=A0 it is = pretty far from trivial. Ant there is a lot more just following the links f= rom posts 2 and 3 of this topic and their references.

It is currently not possible to express any more th= an the most basic intent in C++. C++ remains, after 30 years, basically an = auto-optimising macro assembler. This is not good enough to survive the rig= ours of the modern world.

Well, everyone is entitled to have their opinion, I know a plenty of folks= who see it a different way.


<= br>

--
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/46a88b60-7f08-45fb-bbad-30f5be27d28f= %40isocpp.org.
------=_Part_902_234429908.1541171846206-- ------=_Part_901_282851862.1541171846206-- .