On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 08:47, Tomas p via SG20 <sg20_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> this post is inspired by a presentation of one committee member posted
> recently on reddit.
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/c06908/cnow_2019_daveed_vandevoorde_c_constants/
>
> I have no doubts there is a lot of good thoughts and engineering behind
> the works. But this group should discuss suitability for teaching or
> approaching students and other c++ programmers. I would say discussing new
> proposals from teach-ability perspective should be one of the most
> important things for this group. It's arguably more important than new
> guidelines and material - that can be done any time and people do it
> already - but once a new complicated or difficult to teach feature is
> included in the standard there is no way to remove it and so we should
> better get it right.
>

Fear not, part of SG20's secondary charter is to evaluate proposals'
teachability. The primary charter is to introduce teaching guidelines, as
has been discussed since the beginning.

JC - chair SG20



>
> So I have a question. Do you really think constant
> variables/functions/initialization is going in the right direction? Most
> c++ programmers I know are using only pre-c++11 const keyword. Few
> understand constexpr variables and functions. How many of them do you think
> will be using new keywords in this area - consteval, constinit,
> is_constant_evaluated when it becomes available? Doesn't this work solve
> niche problem? Do you think so many new keywords for constant
> initialization will not be a burden to newcomers and average c++
> programmers?
>
> I am really interested in what this group thinks of it.
> --
> SG20 mailing list
> SG20_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg20
>