Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 14:34:17 +0200
Yeah it's just a placeholder and I used it and saw it in use a lot before,
specifically meow...
Anyway yeah if means strong_ordering/weak_ordering/partial_ordering.
Tymi.
On Tue, 20 May 2025, 14:32 Charles R Hogg, <charles.r.hogg_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 7:18 AM Gabriel Ravier via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On 5/18/25 1:41 PM, Tymi via Std-Proposals wrote:
>> > `switch (left <=> right)` would be a nice thing to have not only for
>> > stylistic reasons, but could also be an easy way for the compiler to
>> > form a jump table, and be less bug prone than a chain of if/else
>> >
>> > It would require a small core language change, mainly explicitly
>> > allowing std::meow_ordering in switch expressions, I said small
>> > because meow_ordering has an exposition only non static data member
>> > integral value for the comparison. Not sure about the wording though,
>> > that might be the difficult part
>> >
>> > Tymi.
>> >
>> Did I miss something (and seemingly the entire internet, since Google
>> returns no results for "meow_ordering") or is "meow_ordering" not a
>> thing/referring to something else ?
>>
>
> I found this really confusing as well, and spent longer than I would care
> to admit trying to google it. Eventually, I realized that "meow" is a cute
> way of saying "foo" or "bar", and used the context clues around the `<=>`
> operator to realize that they were likely referring to
> std::strong_ordering
> <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/compare/strong_ordering>,
> std::weak_ordering
> <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/compare/weak_ordering>, and
> std::partial_ordering
> <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/compare/partial_ordering>.
>
> Once I figured it out, I decided not to reply. But maybe that was a
> mistake. If you found this confusing, and I found it confusing, then I'm
> sure many other people on the list did too.
>
>
> --
>> Std-Proposals mailing list
>> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>>
>
specifically meow...
Anyway yeah if means strong_ordering/weak_ordering/partial_ordering.
Tymi.
On Tue, 20 May 2025, 14:32 Charles R Hogg, <charles.r.hogg_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 7:18 AM Gabriel Ravier via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On 5/18/25 1:41 PM, Tymi via Std-Proposals wrote:
>> > `switch (left <=> right)` would be a nice thing to have not only for
>> > stylistic reasons, but could also be an easy way for the compiler to
>> > form a jump table, and be less bug prone than a chain of if/else
>> >
>> > It would require a small core language change, mainly explicitly
>> > allowing std::meow_ordering in switch expressions, I said small
>> > because meow_ordering has an exposition only non static data member
>> > integral value for the comparison. Not sure about the wording though,
>> > that might be the difficult part
>> >
>> > Tymi.
>> >
>> Did I miss something (and seemingly the entire internet, since Google
>> returns no results for "meow_ordering") or is "meow_ordering" not a
>> thing/referring to something else ?
>>
>
> I found this really confusing as well, and spent longer than I would care
> to admit trying to google it. Eventually, I realized that "meow" is a cute
> way of saying "foo" or "bar", and used the context clues around the `<=>`
> operator to realize that they were likely referring to
> std::strong_ordering
> <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/compare/strong_ordering>,
> std::weak_ordering
> <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/compare/weak_ordering>, and
> std::partial_ordering
> <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/compare/partial_ordering>.
>
> Once I figured it out, I decided not to reply. But maybe that was a
> mistake. If you found this confusing, and I found it confusing, then I'm
> sure many other people on the list did too.
>
>
> --
>> Std-Proposals mailing list
>> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>>
>
Received on 2025-05-20 12:34:29