Subject: Re: [std-proposals] Template qualifiers
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-10-04 03:27:04
On 2019-10-04 08:15, Phil Bouchard via Std-Proposals wrote:
> 2. a) Like I was saying before, the need for the "const" overloads on
> the "this" parameter forces us to create redundant code and disregards
> the "volatile" qualifier:
> 2. b) The only solution I can foresee is to add a new "qualifier"
> template token type:
> template <qualifier Q>
> Â Â Â iterator Â Â Â end () Q noexcept;
This isn't right. The return type must be iterator or const_iterator,
depending on the method qualification.
There isn't such thing as "qualifier" in C++ in the sense distinct from
a type. IOW, qualifier is always part of a type. If you propose to
introduce qualifiers as a distinct entity, you will have to define how
the shall interact with other parts of the language. Especially, what
parts it will break.
Honestly, I don't find your arguments compelling enough for introducing
qualifiers as a distinct entity.
STD-PROPOSALS list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com
Standard Proposals Archives on Google Groups