Subject: Re: [std-proposals] deleting qualified named functions
From: Arthur O'Dwyer (arthur.j.odwyer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-02-05 16:07:15
`foo::bar` is also not motivation. You should show an actual use-case,
something that relates to real code.
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020, 4:57 PM Daniel Gutson <danielgutson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> El miÃ©., 5 feb. 2020 11:18, Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer_at_[hidden]>
>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 9:12 AM Daniel Gutson via Std-Proposals <
>> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> I think this still is a really simple solution. I'll see if this gets
>>> more traction.
>> You need to provide more motivation.
>> "What if I have an empty struct type that is trivially copyable and
>> assignable but for some bizarre unexplained reason I want it to be
>> non-swappable" is simply no motivation at all.
> With all due respect Arthur, have you seen my clarification that swap was
> an example and that the goal is to be able to prevent whatever function in
> a different namespace/scope? For example, foo::bar()
> That's the motivation, rather than preventing swapping (where I think
> "bizarre" is an unneeded word in terms of netiquette).
STD-PROPOSALS list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com
Standard Proposals Archives on Google Groups