Hi,

I was just wondering how the proposal in n1717 has been received by
the committee and if it is making his way into C++0x.

I had missed this paper, and have longly desired myself a syntax to
explicitly specify that a compiler-generated function was wanted; my
idea was to use the auto keyword for that, though, as in

  X & operator=( const X & ) = auto;

I find this more natural. Also, an issue which I can't see mentioned
in the paper is: suppose for instance that the compiler-declared copy
constructor of a class X has (would have) the form

  X(const X& )

but I write

  X( X & ) = auto // or = default or { default } or { auto }...

or viceversa. Do we want this to be legal?

--
Gennaro Prota.    C++ developer. For hire.
(to mail me, remove any 'u' from the address)

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]

Hi Gennaro,
>
> I was just wondering how the proposal in n1717 has been received by
> the committee and if it is making his way into C++0x.

Alisdair Meredith is producing a revision of "State of C++ Evolution"
after each meeting. With so many proposals in the hopper, this document
is the most authoritative view on status.

Take a look at
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2122.htm

It looks like n1717 is dead for this revision; time seems to have run on
on that one. The committee has decided to aim for C++09 as the target
for C++0x to be finished, and that means all feature changes must be
complete in the Working Paper by the end of the October, 2007, meeting.
Than in turn means any proposal that isn't pretty far along in the
process is very unlikely to be considered for this revision of the
standard.

Changing the subject, note that n2105 is very much alive. See
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2105.html. A
post of yours on this newsgroup was one of the motivations for that paper.

Thanks,

--Beman

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]

Hi Gennaro,
>
> I was just wondering how the proposal in n1717 has been received by
> the committee and if it is making his way into C++0x.

Alisdair Meredith is producing a revision of "State of C++ Evolution"
after each meeting. With so many proposals in the hopper, this document
is the most authoritative view on status.

Take a look at
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2122.htm

It looks like n1717 is dead for this revision; time seems to have run on
on that one. The committee has decided to aim for C++09 as the target
for C++0x to be finished, and that means all feature changes must be
complete in the Working Paper by the end of the October, 2007, meeting.
Than in turn means any proposal that isn't pretty far along in the
process is very unlikely to be considered for this revision of the
standard.

Changing the subject, note that n2105 is very much alive. See
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2105.html. A
post of yours on this newsgroup was one of the motivations for that paper.

Thanks,

--Beman

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 06:12:07 GMT, Beman Dawes wrote:

>Alisdair Meredith is producing a revision of "State of C++ Evolution"
>after each meeting. With so many proposals in the hopper, this document
>is the most authoritative view on status.
>
>Take a look at
>http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2122.htm

Thanks, very much needed :-)

>It looks like n1717 is dead for this revision

 :-(

>[...]
>
>Changing the subject, note that n2105 is very much alive. See
>http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2105.html. A
>post of yours on this newsgroup was one of the motivations for that paper.

Thanks for granting the request, though some of my points were ignored

  <http://google.com/group/comp.std.c++/msg/8462954c8507bded>

And for the acknowledgement, though I don't think the "contribution"
was relevant enough to deserve it :-)

--
Gennaro Prota.    C++ developer. For hire.
(to mail me, remove any 'u' from the address)

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]