On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 1:37 PM JF Bastien via Liaison <liaison@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:


On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 9:51 AM Jens Gustedt via Liaison <liaison@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
Hubert,

on Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:27:28 -0400 you (Hubert Tong
<hubert.reinterpretcast@gmail.com>) wrote:

> > The fourth is, that the `default` case needs a template, which we
> > obviously don't have in C and which we will probably never have, for
> > the same reasons.
> > 
> Envisioning generic as a group of overloads is interesting. With C++,
> we now have abbreviated function templates, so even the non-default
> cases can be templates somewhat directly.

Probably yet another thing that I'd have to learn about C++.

> The observation that C++
> could use something like generic was the subject of a previous paper:
> https://wg21.link/p0404.

Very interesting, indeed, thanks for the link.

(Though I am not able to comprehend all of this, my C++ is probably
much too basic.)

So, from the date on that paper I guess you didn't find enough support
for this?

It was presented in the 2016 Issaquah meeting.

The straw poll to encourage more work was positive:
5 | 11 | 3 | 2 | 0 
My impression of the feedback was that it was not particularly indicative of a direction for advancing the paper with new information. In combination with the sudden shift in the focus of the C++ committee to various deliverables and an apparent lack of further interest, we have not continued to pursue development of the feature. At around the same time, there were other proposals for library solutions that could have been seen as completing with respect to the statement form of the proposed feature. With advancements to the committee process, there is a chance that we could gather better feedback now in an incubator group.
 

_______________________________________________
Liaison mailing list
Liaison@lists.isocpp.org
Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/liaison
Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/liaison/2020/03/0077.php