C++ Logo


Advanced search

Subject: Re: [isocpp-ext] P2320: "The Syntax of Static Reflection" feedback request
From: Ville Voutilainen (ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-02-15 18:47:12

On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 02:31, Corentin <corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> >> $ is not up for grabs for C++. This has been discussed in SG7 and
>> >> elsewhere before, but for the purposes of this discussion,
>> >> suffice it to say that there are existing tools that rely on $ not
>> >> being C++, and those tools can do balanced-token parsing
>> >> of C++ source code, without parsing C++, because they know that $ isn't C++..
>> > I don't know if that's as clear cut.
>> > Standard adoption is slow, if we decided that $ is the best solution, it would be a medium term inconvenience for a small number of users.
>> We have no knowledge of what the length of that term is, or how our
>> understanding of that term matches that of the users
>> impacted, and we have no way to know whether it impacts a small number
>> of users or a larger one. On such occasions,
>> we have tended to be careful rather than rash.
>> > Which i understand would be a tough pill to swallow but, i suspect the conversation will have to be had at some point. If not for reflection, for the next feature which needs some syntactic space.
>> The conversation has been had, multiple times. I fail to see how the
>> next feature wouldn't just repeat the discussion,
>> and need to find a syntax that doesn't break existing tools, like
>> everything else needs to.
> The amount of available token sequences is getting thin, as demonstrated by [: :]
> I don't really have a horse in this race but if we assume in 10+ years reflection will be common place (and i think that's a fair assumption), i think there is some value is making sure we do not restrict the set of syntaxes available to us over shorter terms concerns!
> It's a trade off more than it is an impossibility!

It would be unwise to make C++ a language that plays less well with
its surrounding environment. Some of those
tools support C++ as just one language out of many, and the
plausibility of such tools just dropping C++ as
a supported language isn't clear-cut to be a short-term concern. But,
again, we are rehashing a discussion
that has been had before, and there's no new information in it.

SG7 list run by sg7-owner@lists.isocpp.org

Older Archives on Google Groups