C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [std-proposals] Add more methods to std::initializer_list instead of overloading

From: blacktea hamburger <greenteahamburger_at_[hidden]>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2022 22:24:36 +0800
However, such a cleanup still seems possible, it just takes long enough,
and the alternative is ranges.

On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 1:06 PM blacktea hamburger <
greenteahamburger_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Thanks! You can see this as a joke now:
> So the standard library needs a cleanup, hopefully someone will push it
> forward when the UFCS arrives.
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:12 PM Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 9:33 AM blacktea hamburger via Std-Proposals
>> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks. So can you explain why other languages (like D) have UFCS? How
>> do they solve these problems? Or do they simply not care about them?
>> Since we're talking about "large-scale programs", is D a language that
>> should be discussed in that context?
>> Note that Ville specifically pointed to a change from one thing to
>> another. If it had always been the other thing from the start, then
>> you could argue that UFCS is fine, because there is no existing code
>> that had different expectations. But that's not C++.
>> You cannot treat an existing language with literally billions of lines
>> of code like a playground/testbed upon which you can make whatever
>> changes you want. Changes like UFCS which change *fundamental
>> assumptions* upon which various code was written is... complicated.
>> Even if what you're changing it to is manageable, it's still forcing a
>> new set of base assumptions upon code that was never written to handle
>> those assumptions.
>> --
>> Std-Proposals mailing list
>> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals

Received on 2022-09-24 14:25:04