C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [Tooling] Proposed mission

From: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 06:37:11 +0300
On 4 April 2018 at 03:08, David Sankel <camior_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I'm not suggesting that we should never make breaking changes. I am
>> suggesting that we should have bloody strong and good
>> reasons for them, and "this was found to be confusing to some users
>> here and there" doesn't even begin to cut it, and
>> "you can migrate with a tool" is an answer that gets laughed/scoffed
>> at or derided in my usual stomping grounds.
> How would folks react in your usual stomping grounds to the addition of a
> 'std::ranges::sort' function that works on iterators, but is only slightly
> and subtly different from 'std::sort'? What if there's a third sort,
> 'std::we_really_got_it_right_this_time::sort', to add to the mix? Similarly,
> how would they react to having a 'std::vector', 'std::pmr::vector', and
> possibly a 'std2::vector'? Are these acceptable for these folks?

Most likely the reaction would be a brief coffee-room discussion "uh
huh". When adopting
ranges, using a different sort is not a significant burden, and pmr is
also not necessarily
something that users would expect to just drop in, assuming that you
actually find
large amounts of users who'd want to.

Received on 2018-04-04 05:37:14