Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:20:35 +0200
On 26/04/2021 07.51, Uecker, Martin wrote:
> Am Montag, den 26.04.2021, 07:45 +0200 schrieb Jens Maurer via Liaison:
>> On 26/04/2021 00.31, will wray via Liaison wrote:
>>> auto&& e = a[i]; // retains lvalueness
>>> // suboptimal for proxy
>>
>> What's suboptimal about the proxy case here?
>>
>> This seems to get way off-topic for the liaison list, btw.
>>
>> The only part of the proposal that affects the common
>> subset of C and C++ is the fact that the comma operator
>> can no longer be used unparenthesized inside [].
>>
>> Other than that, this is a user-defined overloaded operator,
>> a feature that C doesn't have. Hardly any extension for
>> built-in types that C might contemplate is precluded by that.
>
>
> If C++ adopts this proposal now and encourages use of a[3,2] for
> multi-dimensional indexing, then later people would not
> object if C decides to use the syntax a[3,2] for something
> else for C arrays?
I don't know.
Some observations:
- The liaison group, at best, will inform the WG21 and WG14
committees about points of conflict or concern. It has no
veto powers in either venue.
- As explained earlier, there are a number of situations where
the common use of an overloaded operator in C++ bears no semantic
relationship to the meaning of the operator on built-in types.
On the other hand, those other uses are semantically further apart
than C-style array vs. C++ near-array classes.
- Part of the concern here is timing. The C++ proposal has
a good chance to get into C++23. If there were a specific
proposal for C2x that would cover this area, it would probably
inform the C++ proposal. As far as I know, there isn't.
- Practically speaking, attempting to stop the WG21 proposal
from advancing for concerns about hypothetical future WG14
evolution would seem to require quite a bit of persuasion,
given that WG21's Evolution Working Group has already established
informal consensus on the proposal, and is about to verify
this consensus using a several-week online ballot.
Aaron, what would be suitable next steps here?
Jens
> Am Montag, den 26.04.2021, 07:45 +0200 schrieb Jens Maurer via Liaison:
>> On 26/04/2021 00.31, will wray via Liaison wrote:
>>> auto&& e = a[i]; // retains lvalueness
>>> // suboptimal for proxy
>>
>> What's suboptimal about the proxy case here?
>>
>> This seems to get way off-topic for the liaison list, btw.
>>
>> The only part of the proposal that affects the common
>> subset of C and C++ is the fact that the comma operator
>> can no longer be used unparenthesized inside [].
>>
>> Other than that, this is a user-defined overloaded operator,
>> a feature that C doesn't have. Hardly any extension for
>> built-in types that C might contemplate is precluded by that.
>
>
> If C++ adopts this proposal now and encourages use of a[3,2] for
> multi-dimensional indexing, then later people would not
> object if C decides to use the syntax a[3,2] for something
> else for C arrays?
I don't know.
Some observations:
- The liaison group, at best, will inform the WG21 and WG14
committees about points of conflict or concern. It has no
veto powers in either venue.
- As explained earlier, there are a number of situations where
the common use of an overloaded operator in C++ bears no semantic
relationship to the meaning of the operator on built-in types.
On the other hand, those other uses are semantically further apart
than C-style array vs. C++ near-array classes.
- Part of the concern here is timing. The C++ proposal has
a good chance to get into C++23. If there were a specific
proposal for C2x that would cover this area, it would probably
inform the C++ proposal. As far as I know, there isn't.
- Practically speaking, attempting to stop the WG21 proposal
from advancing for concerns about hypothetical future WG14
evolution would seem to require quite a bit of persuasion,
given that WG21's Evolution Working Group has already established
informal consensus on the proposal, and is about to verify
this consensus using a several-week online ballot.
Aaron, what would be suitable next steps here?
Jens
Received on 2021-04-26 01:20:59