C++ Logo

STD-PROPOSALS

Advanced search

Subject: Re: [std-proposals] deleting qualified named functions
From: Михаил Найденов (mihailnajdenov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-02-05 07:22:54


On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 1:29 PM Daniel Gutson <danielgutson_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> El mié., 5 feb. 2020 06:02, Михаил Найденов <mihailnajdenov_at_[hidden]>
> escribió:
>
>> Note that, the extensions points are being completely revamped now.
>> p1895r0.pdf
>> <http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2019/p1895r0.pdf>
>> p1665r0.pdf
>> <http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2019/p1665r0.pdf>
>>
>> and others.
>>
>

> Interesting, how would you use them for this case?
>

It is envisioned, all such functions, to do (call) the right thing (even
when qualified)
so there will be no need to protect yourself by deleting the default.

I have no idea how current extensions points will be handled, though. What
the upgrade path will be.

>
>
>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:50 PM Daniel Gutson via Std-Proposals <
>> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> What people think about this?
>>>
>>> struct S
>>> {
>>> *std::*swap(S&, S&) = delete;
>>> };
>>>
>>> In this example, this would be useful to prevent std::sort for example
>>> (even if we add operator< ).
>>>
>>> --
>>> Who’s got the sweetest disposition?
>>> One guess, that’s who?
>>> Who’d never, ever start an argument?
>>> Who never shows a bit of temperament?
>>> Who's never wrong but always right?
>>> Who'd never dream of starting a fight?
>>> Who get stuck with all the bad luck?
>>> --
>>> Std-Proposals mailing list
>>> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
>>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>>>
>>



STD-PROPOSALS list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com

Standard Proposals Archives on Google Groups