Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 21:22:01 +0200
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 21:09, Andrew Tomazos via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> I think this is a problem worth solving. Its against a C++ design principle that built-in references (like const std;:string&) have the lifetime extension feature, whereas user-defined reference-like classes (like std::string_view) do not. In particular, this is one the arguments against migrating from const std::string& to std::string_view.
>
> I encourage you to submit a proposal for C++23: https://isocpp.org/std/submit-a-proposal
We already have one:
http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2019/p1179r1.pdf
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> I think this is a problem worth solving. Its against a C++ design principle that built-in references (like const std;:string&) have the lifetime extension feature, whereas user-defined reference-like classes (like std::string_view) do not. In particular, this is one the arguments against migrating from const std::string& to std::string_view.
>
> I encourage you to submit a proposal for C++23: https://isocpp.org/std/submit-a-proposal
We already have one:
http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2019/p1179r1.pdf
Received on 2019-12-19 13:24:40