Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2024 00:41:43 +0300
On 9/8/24 00:21, Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals wrote:
> On Saturday 7 September 2024 22:11:32 CEST Jeremy Rifkin via Std-Proposals
> wrote:
>> If I understand correctly P0781 was written before std::span was
>> proposed and suggested some magic std::argument_list. Now that there's a
>> standard replacement for pointer+length, is it worth reconsidering?
>
> std::span requires that there be a contiguous range of the value_types in
> memory somewhere. That's the problem here: std::string_view aren't there. We
> could use a std::span<std::cstring_view> but no one wants to standardise
> cstring_view.
cstring_view also aren't there, unless you're willing to mandate its
binary representation as a single pointer and legalize type punning.
> On Saturday 7 September 2024 22:11:32 CEST Jeremy Rifkin via Std-Proposals
> wrote:
>> If I understand correctly P0781 was written before std::span was
>> proposed and suggested some magic std::argument_list. Now that there's a
>> standard replacement for pointer+length, is it worth reconsidering?
>
> std::span requires that there be a contiguous range of the value_types in
> memory somewhere. That's the problem here: std::string_view aren't there. We
> could use a std::span<std::cstring_view> but no one wants to standardise
> cstring_view.
cstring_view also aren't there, unless you're willing to mandate its
binary representation as a single pointer and legalize type punning.
Received on 2024-09-07 21:41:47