220 41360 article Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joel.g.hemphill@gmail.com Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Optimizing Power Function for Integral Types Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:19:17 -0800 (PST) Lines: 78 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_1174_980906168.1547860757552" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1547860637 24961 195.159.176.226 (19 Jan 2019 01:17:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 01:17:17 +0000 (UTC) To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC4Y55PCR4BBBFXWRHRAKGQEKZLKT2I@isocpp.org Sat Jan 19 02:17:13 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-yw1-f71.google.com ([209.85.161.71]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gkfG1-0006Jm-CD for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 Jan 2019 02:17:09 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-yw1-f71.google.com with SMTP id f10sf7896394ywc.21 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:19:21 -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=UbyuwawlXjBoZGzshQ92OjMLLRIByNT7OeYpm7zc6Lw=; b=jUj4MczxqG1sT/uJ4QDOxxdD1hadnoqbyk9WCM2S0w97xoHault/oX/ltiarKDzyYX RscSAgxYq3eYbP8oOJgaYQXV/X8qqMNdEmZkxZR5aluObctjZJl/knO0zM/XbfXljFwv nZgSKzFBcDO9Fgtkt71VnqJxgbLVwARpY1M6gTGL4MkcR6o5DBJxrV+AaHrlFfavzFhi i/tA7QdYM2uqwUURDOfpbzH3OA+NYISNQt0wgGXC8FD3vKNfEDyMWrFoMWMjVurnkmUP FYcYBQWaYK3AtBVJc3RQpoJAlxN5IHdN/VodsMNmtBzKUok5mB01x1rhLQ528wJI/lO1 3C8A== 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=UbyuwawlXjBoZGzshQ92OjMLLRIByNT7OeYpm7zc6Lw=; b=MBlKxmkC8o2RdnnkjgnVfc8fYI029KeitC5xafKJKJYNX5fRkcmLJU89o8ZB8xDmNE mpxzJ0T7M5envzzDnHIcoqYvUliH6ru6RwO8VwL7JUIkh3D9Ne6FzIQ88MRpoyYDcRjd mc9iNdCekC5KZjA8BhsA4WflpFXWMTCSveUjU7RfQ+v7ZJvVE5cJKN2HPytheWDK7KPc l7IRVL+YrM05GSSbGS3/H/nBeJ7wYrHgQ4ctK69gDKrYJ1oB1Vhvga6/WtiOcOwz5zTY 6zM5FCKCJa5NQdfxFshBy53wLtrOTemz4W7I6NFbsLJOX7jJ1aE6cPX3xSmmSG0FYhu/ DRKQ== 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=UbyuwawlXjBoZGzshQ92OjMLLRIByNT7OeYpm7zc6Lw=; b=dGm2BTsgAzBh6HwLv1QzvnDPQI2+LgugTobcxLyoiOzPCV/sxe+GxLPRW74dTz19G+ N/4s7AvkfWfc4hGAy3OA3NOOVTKCMrM762xJfB8EaT5uccAyyAngL/dY6DrlBhjS0SFv uLQi1ooSuWTAFmt0GIs6kB9JdAk++ivqrsKUqdCvJ7RcDKGKQXsGkZ5vQX4w6ZmL+Xue wUnpl+JENlMAB7xdeyw2v+X4+r1ww8mW4rtCAKN99E5hRoV5myJvG4lgJ4o9hyWb1jh8 y2re5SED421wA9d8LkXc6WKHB118GieIrhRhdPrt13ePJYtUZkm3Ng8dESL699sDMvlJ t+uQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukf1Z1JESIz855VND7KhuzT02defJwEVRr3b4VjuLTW+r9ap5QlI VvosE5cdxThyQjb7GqHwo/YZ1Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN7vsmdFt6OUIXHsH5HYOP3GgLZ+K5g2GoEAGR3ZUN17gfhfJHyr00lEbmfSXNe3CJz3cdsPVA== X-Received: by 2002:a25:99c2:: with SMTP id q2mr4797686ybo.40.1547860759389; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:19:19 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 2002:a81:3084:: with SMTP id w126ls365389yww.4.gmail; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:19:18 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a81:115:: with SMTP id 21mr216548ywb.7.1547860758302; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:19:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: Joel.G.Hemphill@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:41360 Archived-At: ------=_Part_1174_980906168.1547860757552 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1175_950262710.1547860757553" ------=_Part_1175_950262710.1547860757553 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I think the idea of un-abbreviating pow would be a nice design shift, though I am skeptical due to the amount of code which would be made 'legacy' by such a change. As for the operators... Those would need to be introduced at the core-language level, and I don't think that it would be an appropriate proposal here. As a side note here; I DO think it would be an interesting shift in the core language to support user-defined operators. It would be very difficult to define a consistent methodology, but it would significantly improve the general readability of a good number of object-interactions. For instance: operator::@(MyPointClass c)". Like I said though, this really isn't the place for such ideas, as those would need to happen at the lower-levels of C++. On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 3:42:19 PM UTC-8, Jake Arkinstall wrote: > > I agree on that - but I also dislike like the unnecessary abbreviation > "pow", so I'd propose a templated function std::power, maybe with a default > for unsigned integral powers if T operator*(T const&, T const&) exists. > > Even better, an operator for it instead (e.g. ^^, as ** introduces > ambiguities). > -- 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/a4ed51d9-36ac-462f-aafa-06478682140a%40isocpp.org. ------=_Part_1175_950262710.1547860757553 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think the idea of un-abbreviating pow would be a nice de= sign shift, though I am skeptical due to the amount of code which would be = made 'legacy' by such a change. As for the operators... Those would= need to be introduced at the core-language level, and I don't think th= at it would be an appropriate proposal here. As a side note here; I DO thin= k it would be an interesting shift in the core language to support user-def= ined operators. It would be very difficult to define a consistent methodolo= gy, but it would significantly improve the general readability of a good nu= mber of object-interactions. For instance: operator::@(MyPointClass c)"= ;. Like I said though, this really isn't the place for such ideas, as t= hose would need to happen at the lower-levels of C++.

On Friday, Jan= uary 18, 2019 at 3:42:19 PM UTC-8, Jake Arkinstall wrote:
I agree on that - but I also dislike like the u= nnecessary abbreviation "pow", so I'd propose a templated fun= ction std::power, maybe with a default for unsigned integral powers if T op= erator*(T const&, T const&) exists.

Even better, an operator for = it instead (e.g. ^^, as ** introduces ambiguities).

--
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/a4ed51d9-36ac-462f-aafa-06478682140a= %40isocpp.org.
------=_Part_1175_950262710.1547860757553-- ------=_Part_1174_980906168.1547860757552-- .