Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 15:30:14 +0000
He mentioned prvalues, which would nonsense, but once you read the proposal it looks more like a functor, you write it as if you would call a functor but the call only happens inside the function.
It is not good as it begs the question if what you are passing in is a functor, why don't you write it that way instead of creating a new syntax.
Which ultimately is what everything boils down to, everything can just be simplified with an interface that does the call explicitly instead of playing value semantics.
________________________________
From: Std-Proposals <std-proposals-bounces_at_[hidden]> on behalf of Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 4:12:18 PM
To: std-proposals_at_[hidden] <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Thiago Macieira <thiago_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [std-proposals] std::elide
On Friday 31 May 2024 09:31:29 GMT-3 Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-
Proposals wrote:
> Well it wouldn't be Friday if I didn't write a new paper so here goes:
>
> http://www.virjacode.com/papers/prvalue_params.htm
A prvalue is a special type of rvalue. What you're saying is that rvalue-ref
functions can only accept xvalues but not prvalues, though that's patently
false.
void f(int &&);
void f()
{
f(3);
}
3 is a prvalue and is accepted.
Given that your introduction section contains such a blatant absurdity, either
your paper is entirely wrong or you're using wrong terms to mean what you want
to mean. I didn't read the rest.
I did notice you're still using std::mutex in your examples, though. STOP
DOING THAT. Anyone reading the paper will again go into the discussion of how
returning a mutex is pointless. Find another, real type that is immovable but
makes sense to return.
It is not good as it begs the question if what you are passing in is a functor, why don't you write it that way instead of creating a new syntax.
Which ultimately is what everything boils down to, everything can just be simplified with an interface that does the call explicitly instead of playing value semantics.
________________________________
From: Std-Proposals <std-proposals-bounces_at_[hidden]> on behalf of Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 4:12:18 PM
To: std-proposals_at_[hidden] <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Thiago Macieira <thiago_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [std-proposals] std::elide
On Friday 31 May 2024 09:31:29 GMT-3 Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-
Proposals wrote:
> Well it wouldn't be Friday if I didn't write a new paper so here goes:
>
> http://www.virjacode.com/papers/prvalue_params.htm
A prvalue is a special type of rvalue. What you're saying is that rvalue-ref
functions can only accept xvalues but not prvalues, though that's patently
false.
void f(int &&);
void f()
{
f(3);
}
3 is a prvalue and is accepted.
Given that your introduction section contains such a blatant absurdity, either
your paper is entirely wrong or you're using wrong terms to mean what you want
to mean. I didn't read the rest.
I did notice you're still using std::mutex in your examples, though. STOP
DOING THAT. Anyone reading the paper will again go into the discussion of how
returning a mutex is pointless. Find another, real type that is immovable but
makes sense to return.
-- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Principal Engineer - Intel DCAI Fleet Engineering and Quality -- Std-Proposals mailing list Std-Proposals_at_[hidden] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
Received on 2024-05-31 15:30:17