C++ Logo


Advanced search

Subject: Re: Constant initialization in C++20
From: JC van Winkel (jcvw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-06-19 12:26:03

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

> 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

SG20 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com

Older Archives on Google Groups