Re-sending due to email issues.

El dom., 14 jul. 2019 04:59, Daniel Gutson <danielgutson_at_[hidden]>
escribió:

>
>
> El dom., 14 jul. 2019 04:27, Andrew Tomazos <andrewtomazos_at_[hidden]>
> escribió:
>
>> I've been working on a proposal for namespace templates as motivated by
>> what I call the library configuration problem.
>>
>
This comes from a 5 years old discussion I started where you participated:
https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/m/#!topic/std-proposals/8IDbb1L5_UA

There are evidences of people asking about this at least since 2010:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3319503/templating-a-namespace

IMVHO is important to provide some historical context.

So, I'm lost and didn't follow up since then, could you pr Jake please tell
me the status of that topic? Jake Arkinstall had a draft IIRC.


>
>
> One of the things that came up during discussions was a use case around
>> out-of-class definitions in a class template. I don't currently see a
>> unified solution to both things, however I have come up with an idea for a
>> feature that solves the out-of-class definitions problem.
>>
>> Let us first state what the out-of-class definition problem is.
>>
>> When you define a class template you have two choices. Either you define
>> the members within the class template Java-style:
>>
>> template<typename T>
>> class C {
>> public:
>> void f() { /* do stuff */ }
>> };
>>
>> or you define the members outside the class template:
>>
>> template<typename T>
>> class C {
>> public:
>> void f();
>> };
>>
>> template<typename T>
>> void C<T>::f() { /* do stuff */ }
>>
>> The problem with defining them inside the class is that it hampers
>> readability as the definitions clutter the interface.
>>
>> The problem with defining them outside the class is that it requires
>> boilerplate DRY violations to repeat the (potentially lengthy) template
>> head and class name for each definition.
>>
>> So my idea would be to introduce a new implementation section of a class
>> definition that may only define previously declared member entities. The
>> section allows the best of both worlds. You can define the entities
>> in-line in the class, but not clutter the separate interface section:
>>
>> template<typename T>
>> class C {
>> public:
>> void f();
>> implementation:
>> void f() { /* do stuff */ }
>> };
>>
>> The access level (public, private, protected) of the members defined in
>> the implementation section is taken from their original declaration.
>>
>> Thoughts? Is this worth pursuing?
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to std-proposals+unsubscribe_at_isocpp.org.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAB%2B4KH%2B4HUh4x42xchBL3nEC-7KRZT%2B6kHb5WByfsvPm6iUn_A%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAB%2B4KH%2B4HUh4x42xchBL3nEC-7KRZT%2B6kHb5WByfsvPm6iUn_A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>