C++ Logo

STD-PROPOSALS

Advanced search

Subject: Re: [std-proposals] deleting qualified named functions
From: Daniel Gutson (danielgutson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-02-05 08:12:12


I think this still is a really simple solution. I'll see if this gets more
traction.

El mié., 5 feb. 2020 10:23, Михаил Найденов <mihailnajdenov_at_[hidden]>
escribió:

>
>
> 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