Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 22:07:12 -0700
On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 9:21 PM Jeremy Rifkin via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > Is it then worth standardising? Anyone can write the 8 lines of "using"
> statements.
>
> While this is true, I can think of at least two reasons it should be standardized:
> - It’s worth standardizing so a user doesn’t have to write the boilerplate in some utils.hpp or common.hpp file in all projects. std::move is similarly trivial to write yourself, etc.
Or, just use the existing types.
> - It’s worth standardizing so that it is standard. What if one project calls it i8 but another calls it s8? Furthermore, code examples online should be able to use these more sensible names without having to add a footnote along the lines of “assume the convention of these 8 usings is followed”
Or they use the existing and perfectly sensible names of int8_t or
uint8_t. Afraid that I'm not seeing the benefits of the shorter
names. And I work in the networking space where almost everything is
a fixed bit-width type.
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > Is it then worth standardising? Anyone can write the 8 lines of "using"
> statements.
>
> While this is true, I can think of at least two reasons it should be standardized:
> - It’s worth standardizing so a user doesn’t have to write the boilerplate in some utils.hpp or common.hpp file in all projects. std::move is similarly trivial to write yourself, etc.
Or, just use the existing types.
> - It’s worth standardizing so that it is standard. What if one project calls it i8 but another calls it s8? Furthermore, code examples online should be able to use these more sensible names without having to add a footnote along the lines of “assume the convention of these 8 usings is followed”
Or they use the existing and perfectly sensible names of int8_t or
uint8_t. Afraid that I'm not seeing the benefits of the shorter
names. And I work in the networking space where almost everything is
a fixed bit-width type.
Received on 2025-07-03 05:07:25