Subject: Re: [isocpp-ext] P2320: "The Syntax of Static Reflection" feedback request
From: Ville Voutilainen (ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-02-15 19:19:51
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 03:00, Corentin <corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 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.
> Just one!
Well, start looking, then. Ask Mr. Smith what tools he was talking
about. Also check whether tools like velocity
break, and in which ways, if C++ claims $. There are more tools that
use dollars for markers, outside
strings, so if we wish to use $ outside strings, it shouldn't be all
that hard to test them with C++ that uses
a hypothetical $ syntax. You don't even need a modified C++ compiler,
just feed those tools C++ that uses
$ for reflection purposes.
Then tell us what you found.
> Should we close design avenues because we cannot with certainty disprove their existence?
No. We should stop wasting our time on repetitive discussions about
whether we can grab $.
But in case we wish to rehash that waste of time *again*, we should
analyze its impact.
We should of course analyze the impact of this proposal we're talking
about, too. Any syntax that's ill-formed
C++ today is possibly used by some wide-spread tool.
SG7 list run by firstname.lastname@example.org
Older Archives on Google Groups