C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: The unnecessary confusion of the C++23 proposal P0847R6

From: Yongwei Wu <wuyongwei_at_[hidden]>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2021 11:44:07 +0800
On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 at 03:05, Jason McKesson via Std-Discussion <
std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 12:28 PM Hani Deek via Std-Discussion
> <std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> As previously stated, the only "complexity" is that you didn't use the
> keyword `static` when you declared it.
> > The P0847R6 proposal messes up those fundamentals for no good reason. It
> disrupts the current format in order to achieve something that can be
> achieved differently without any disruption.
> Oh, and one last thing. P0847 has already been approved by EWG and CWG
> (https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/115). It's up for review
> by Plenary, so it's almost certainly going to be in C++23. There was
> *one person* who voted against forwarding it to CWG from EWG. So
> you're a bit late to the party.

While I agree in principle that we do not want unnecessary complexities,
the proposal does solve immediate problems (code duplication is bad,
right?) without too much learning overhead. So it looks good to me (from a
user point of view).

My 2 cents.

Received on 2021-07-31 22:44:22