220 41456 <3341e330-37e8-4a08-87cb-06f92ea6025a@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nicol Bolas Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Anybody interested in reviewing draft/presenting "anti" spaceship paper? Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 19:04:07 -0800 (PST) Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <3341e330-37e8-4a08-87cb-06f92ea6025a@isocpp.org> References: <544de10d-be39-4c83-a211-b888a34724c3@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_215_1292553414.1550372647752" Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="166655"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCEKFTV6ZUMBBKM6UPRQKGQEFUI7XBI@isocpp.org Sun Feb 17 04:04:13 2019 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 esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gvCkW-000hBI-6L for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 04:04:12 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-yb1-f198.google.com with SMTP id 187sf8787892ybi.17 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 19:04:11 -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=R7BUXypJksjaXCb/Wv8CWVPqqErsnDHhaUN4wLeKu7o=; b=txG+oXoVZabGDkwdGRGloaovT+1sHPKqxWlb9PANfBiaAhbdtq+ApeDNMf3YnZxC1F SGMX0h9vO52+1fT0kZCRk1/i8di/7R9BNeY07vCpJ/tHgBuFOEyNvQFI9M3elKzFdHpR h6zC/pEV89Ld8u+3sy+CGtzL7c4HRVcICX8HDaXpY5MML6GoZFPtdEICQLw+RlIvthWK vNpY8P9gWhlDOPI9SdVRev3THAmW/7pRDx5IJLwlPz0+T5iCBDIBwoEDarRbXMg3Hsi+ t8H3cwLUY8hyQjORuiMEaeY7pZ/fkebsOo2HP4nclWExXNyLjY87bnw3G0543yJQck2l uLTw== 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=R7BUXypJksjaXCb/Wv8CWVPqqErsnDHhaUN4wLeKu7o=; b=oVaxnWXiFBAcFht22pAJQwyrtkHqg263gO0I4kQ//ScpixM+UbCVdH8RK1JK8InP0A QXSlIc4aLqSnlJuJYonDA+/ivdG/q/hZljM33MmJNTIHWwOhaoZLp27kK7/t6EPYQP8t OsR8pA39XImmrMG0+fGmgXhJTT+jHSKTiA5EnFHUSTmYt/paF2FmQ36WIu3Ol+chiMbY w/7tyRqFP/0dk+/DKt1VYHgJSGf1JHbjxvAEBYoyhZEk1HXTUrzd9D0UGnabjOtaAACk fXWSS2e3aJqwQ9xTeM28eVtq/sCvyriJnSLnPCIyK/huj3TVd4eT7gSxKZO2PUry9CBy WaFg== 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=R7BUXypJksjaXCb/Wv8CWVPqqErsnDHhaUN4wLeKu7o=; b=SjiHvQ/faSGJXQKLFlXvLKJgxfMrEjmTErna/mlpgYzHKFxPVj71MsLHBAMKbeux+M v2DR8Dw/HUsZVbZM/hQzRbLZ362oNd+sZhjxHzmSdh3xYL8ch/s5R/UegCgU+0OhFuV3 y1krK5slQ7kuJfuU60dpVoWo8QTysrSZObAxlqW8jqZUotuCUdgR4rILDoyeOdOFvOaZ Sx9hXA57OyNFopfHho5VlC3Z7ovQut5boysj7CCtWFZJCH+3BtLCTkZuedU/B4Y2FvtL f/3MzAmec29AVVsy2l5OX85gGkbnv9n8rTfXGWCzG9Q5JztQhjQrqrfwfvCWH0+Y9nFc l7eA== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubccAh1e6synx8EjiNos6lWo5cDOnF/2I1/UBV/HOVmU/1a8SpT WZA7NSFE7dw9qdh0ja3APNgOFw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbE9siPjk6UVxZWA7RuGj6yBpzdqWLIAj4W8igC0wEI8TrgjlU4OOPC8XHnSSnWFa40KiV5+g== X-Received: by 2002:a81:47c5:: with SMTP id u188mr8422423ywa.10.1550372650477; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 19:04:10 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 2002:a25:a223:: with SMTP id b32ls3330862ybi.6.gmail; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 19:04:08 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a25:8042:: with SMTP id a2mr115901ybn.2.1550372648703; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 19:04:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <544de10d-be39-4c83-a211-b888a34724c3@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-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:41456 Archived-At: ------=_Part_215_1292553414.1550372647752 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_216_1020690324.1550372647752" ------=_Part_216_1020690324.1550372647752 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Your strongest argument was about == and != being potentially faster, and that has already been changed (ie: EWG approved. I don't believe CWG has approved wording), pursuant to P1190 and P1185. I find most of the rest of your arguments to be specious and highly opinionated with little factual basis behind them. I was particularly amused by your argument that the "average C++ developer" cannot be expected to be able to learn about anything within the standard library's namespace. I'm pretty sure C++ programmers are smart enough at a minimum to learn by route (ie: include file X and the words Y can be used to mean Z). Also, performance is not really the reason for `<=>`; it's convenience, consistency, and ease of use without *sacrificing* performance. So the fact that nobody can prove that `<=>` is undeniably faster in some case not really relevant. So long as it isn't *slower*, it's a net-gain. Oh, and as for real code that is more readable with `<=>` than without it, just look at any implementation of `std::optional`. Lastly, a typo: you cite a section of P0893, but the section you meant to cite is 5.1.3, not 5.3.1. -- 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/3341e330-37e8-4a08-87cb-06f92ea6025a%40isocpp.org. ------=_Part_216_1020690324.1550372647752 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Your strongest argument was about =3D=3D and !=3D bei= ng potentially faster, and that has already been changed (ie: EWG approved.= I don't believe CWG has approved wording), pursuant to P1190 and P1185= ..

I find most of the rest of your arguments to be = specious and highly opinionated with little factual basis behind them. I wa= s particularly amused by your argument that the "average C++ developer= " cannot be expected to be able to learn about anything within the sta= ndard library's namespace. I'm pretty sure C++ programmers are smar= t enough at a minimum to learn by route (ie: include file X and the words Y= can be used to mean Z).

Also, performance is not = really the reason for `<=3D>`; it's convenience, consistency, and= ease of use without sacrificing performance. So the fact that nobod= y can prove that `<=3D>` is undeniably faster in some case not really= relevant. So long as it isn't slower, it's a net-gain.
<= /div>

Oh, and as for real code that is more readable wit= h `<=3D>` than without it, just look at any implementation of `std::o= ptional`.

Lastly, a typo: you cite a section of P0= 893, but the section you meant to cite is 5.1.3, not 5.3.1.

--
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/3341e330-37e8-4a08-87cb-06f92ea6025a= %40isocpp.org.
------=_Part_216_1020690324.1550372647752-- ------=_Part_215_1292553414.1550372647752-- .