C++ Logo

SG10

Advanced search

Subject: [SG10] Macro name for N3657
From: Nelson, Clark (clark.nelson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-19 19:36:54


Here is the concluding message in the thread about the macro name for
heterogeneous comparison lookup for associative containers.

(Frankly, I didn't try to follow the logic; I was just happy the discussion
eventually came in for a landing with the authors all satisfied.)

Enjoy. :-)

Clark

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephan T. Lavavej [mailto:stl_at_[hidden]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:14 AM
To: Joaquín Mª López Muñoz; Nelson, Clark
Cc: Jonathan Wakely
Subject: RE: Feature-test macro names for C++14

Hmm, that's a good point. I'm fine with "generic" here.

STL

-----Original Message-----
From: Joaquín Mª López Muñoz [mailto:joaquin_at_[hidden]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 11:09 AM
To: Nelson, Clark
Cc: Stephan T. Lavavej; Jonathan Wakely
Subject: Re: Feature-test macro names for C++14

Sorry to chime in late, but I object to
__cpp_lib_transparent_associative_lookup: comparison might be
transparent, but lookup (which is the feature, comparison only the
means) is generic. Much as polymorphic lambdas are generic but not
transparent. My vote goes then to __cpp_lib_generic_associative_lookup
(but will be happy with whatever the final decision is.)

J

El 04/06/2013 19:20, Nelson, Clark escribió:
> OK, great; I will assume that's the winner, unless I hear some objection.
>
> Thanks, all,
> Clark
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephan T. Lavavej [mailto:stl_at_[hidden]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 10:13 AM
>> To: Jonathan Wakely
>> Cc: JOAQUIN M. LOPEZ MUÑOZ; Nelson, Clark
>> Subject: RE: Feature-test macro names for C++14
>>
>> __cpp_lib_transparent_associative_lookup sounds good to me too.
>>
>> STL
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jonathan Wakely [mailto:jonathan.wakely_at_[hidden]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 9:29 AM
>> To: Stephan T. Lavavej
>> Cc: JOAQUIN M. LOPEZ MUÑOZ; Nelson, Clark
>> Subject: Re: Feature-test macro names for C++14
>>
>> On 4 June 2013 17:23, Stephan T. Lavavej wrote:
>>> "polymorphic" is problematic because it's already a Word Of Power in
>> Core and Library (std::is_polymorphic). We should avoid making
>> "polymorphic" the new "static".
>>
>> Ah yes, you did explain that to me in Bristol but I had forgotten it.
>>
>>> "generic" doesn't suffer from that problem, but I consider
>> "transparent" to be more descriptive. Things are generic when they're
>> templated in some way, but generic things are transparent when they
>> avoid interfering with arguments and return values. For example,
>> std::max(const T&, const T&) is generic but not transparent.
>>
>> After Stephan's patient reminders why we chose the current word :-) I
>> think Clark's suggestion of __cpp_lib_transparent_associative_lookup
>> gets my vote.
>>
>>
> .
>


SG10 list run by sg10-owner@lists.isocpp.org