220 41248 article Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: gmisocpp@gmail.com Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Is std::is_constant_evaluated the right name for this feature? Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 21:38:41 -0800 (PST) Lines: 81 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_202_1407972041.1544679521492" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1544679399 25413 195.159.176.226 (13 Dec 2018 05:36:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 05:36:39 +0000 (UTC) To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCM3TRNUXUDBBY7AY7QAKGQEPUUWFEQ@isocpp.org Thu Dec 13 06:36:35 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-yb1-f197.google.com ([209.85.219.197]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gXJfm-0006Ul-9l for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 06:36:34 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-yb1-f197.google.com with SMTP id l138sf547223ybl.18 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 21:38:45 -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:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=fYvWniLEquTG9gxPxSpjloslOhF9qSFFDRavGyKaZW0=; b=oi3AVYAfQk1lpkrFfQJ6WJqoLCklIsSaHBL3mHpJ+KAx/oqiqDVD9TcFQtJjLLKuku ixCQCR1lOomWWnZp1YQ9bdFU9ApaYhk4+QFDeyV7aLM1hd5Jhs74lOd+HKRfXOfNz7DF 8VcYzBObOW2jcLHa5pdfswYS6WoBFf7a95s6aSb42mNkJ78a5p7neYznssA7WkeSBzxM WRzI03eoOJl4oA8Rz+ZFIRcNKi+dosEGbSAd4PsDGGhfXMOZhHqFP0B2X5Y3mFgRkFrb zdA1Y5l3L8Yvex4LJ8WP5jSjzfe2oybsaJDjEoSOjqHWUH+2phb9Xoujib8TRQ7qyeV4 fgZw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:message-id:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=fYvWniLEquTG9gxPxSpjloslOhF9qSFFDRavGyKaZW0=; b=fUFNr/CfBzbrOzw/66R4/dS0Sbt+4oJm+m/OvZa9q8ZSPVl17QmNOlLNNWuYWheInX XUW1s0ieqj4AoyTUeOAv2mRaSg1tqzmjbbx4Yalme5pLVxPt0UQ2K83/c3Xrxo1CoPXc aqHKNdEBMXZRJcPwbg1nGRMEwZeuYCwkHOZy6XmkeIH5/EZZCBiiF6XizDMEbHprKQka NJ1/DaILxamgzJFyOLXoNa6auZ1g8z84JxFRVCRgJV8Qc+r62Gx/nUpBQi6gjTGhc17E BN8jyT9GbJH6epysQZRdIK6UeHgpyZyZp8gk4BsO2zkaks5N63f88lsXK77wzyZsSy/M 46Iw== 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: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=fYvWniLEquTG9gxPxSpjloslOhF9qSFFDRavGyKaZW0=; b=QHgyqzyWWF8oZYnH9V6HDK5LbY1a/vHFDgoRtqjK6WR8JkaOtVSrphoZxp+IYG+OsO afs0nhKmCZMx+SQmVlSq/Q2O/WsxMFcPRxySXSFBIbI/+VxXQ8Q0utFL4plfhI80mweS lZD30UJ2jJynvXoJK+1jaYDATWJeV6Gp9/Li8scEc+k+OGCD0olVJjZVgKmPd32PrPzq Np/hpKeRkVb3PGFFHQtD7SkwX2N3O9SWbhrLBmhAx+yRbVfWjKboROEEdmKQO33WGq/o f0LLDjBd4dxbfKvCRhsFz3z9KF1BgvS81fFiGPWR8C2BynGym1C4+zi6XJQnzlxLTuj1 1rZw== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWZCPou9YBA5RaL1T5w39MRscMA80oXRnIHFErH66aq6x97sRxpa lGLhRfa846WFPukhDM54YhIGow== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/XMwlAaS5zSp8JSz+mPrSOaSZDOBEYFDmyWoYxK7lbwOGhKlr+t7M/Yp4mqImkSHaaElkSLzA== X-Received: by 2002:a25:5008:: with SMTP id e8mr4168626ybb.103.1544679524700; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 21:38:44 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 2002:a0d:de41:: with SMTP id h62ls645103ywe.9.gmail; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 21:38:43 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a81:550b:: with SMTP id j11mr392326ywb.4.1544679523176; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 21:38:43 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Sender: gmisocpp@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:41248 Archived-At: ------=_Part_202_1407972041.1544679521492 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_203_784246804.1544679521492" ------=_Part_203_784246804.1544679521492 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Everyone I was listening to Cpp Chat where std::is_constant_evaluated() was suggested that maybe the Committee had chosen the wrong name for this feature. I am inclined to agree. I can imagine a future where C might also get constexpr and consteval and then C code might likely exist that might expect to compile interchangeably as C and C++ using std::is_constant_evaluated() too. However in such a future C can't use std::is_constant_evaluated because C does not have namespaces. Might it be better to rename std::is_constant_evaluated to something else that isn't in a namespace? Maybe if (consteval()) or if (is_consteval()) ? If we don't do this and C does get such features, C++ will come under pressure to adopt the C version of is_constant_evaluated too for compatibility. So shouldn't we head this off now? Separately, I see commentary from various places that if constexpr should not introduce a scope. I'm interested in peoples opinions on that. -- 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/b2e42916-753e-497c-a491-76e7121cfdd7%40isocpp.org. ------=_Part_203_784246804.1544679521492 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Everyone

I was listening = to Cpp Chat where=C2=A0std::is_constant_evaluated() was suggested that=C2= =A0maybe the Committee had chosen the wrong name=C2=A0for this feature. I a= m inclined to agree.

I can imagine a future where = C might also get constexpr and consteval and=C2=A0then=C2=A0C code might li= kely exist that might expect to compile=C2=A0interchangeably as C and C++= =C2=A0using=C2=A0std::is_constant_evaluated()=C2=A0too.

However=C2=A0in such a future C can't use=C2=A0std::is_constant_e= valuated=C2=A0because=C2=A0C does not have namespaces.

=
Might it be better to rename std::is_constant_evaluated to something e= lse that=C2=A0isn't=C2=A0in a namespace?
Maybe if (consteval(= )) or if (is_consteval()) ?

If we don't do thi= s and C does get such features, C++ will come under pressure to adopt the C= version of is_constant_evaluated too for compatibility. So shouldn't w= e head this off now?

Separately, I see commentary = from various places that if constexpr should not introduce a scope.
I'm interested in peoples opinions on that.

--
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/b2e42916-753e-497c-a491-76e7121cfdd7= %40isocpp.org.
------=_Part_203_784246804.1544679521492-- ------=_Part_202_1407972041.1544679521492-- .