Topic: C11 keywords
Author: Myriachan <myriachan@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
Raw View
------=_Part_3323_1194516526.1413920731501
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Should C++ state that C11's underscore keywords are aliases to the
equivalent C++ versions? It would be nice for header compatibility.
_Static_assert -> static_assert
_Alignas -> alignas
_Alignof -> alignof
_Pragma -> #pragma (this one is already in C++)
_Bool -> int
_Noreturn -> [[noreturn]]
_Thread_local -> thread_local
These don't make sense in C++ (unless we wanted to hardwire std::complex
for two of them):
_Complex
_Generic
_Imaginary
_Bool is also problematic, and maybe leaving it out would be wise.
Melissa
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
------=_Part_3323_1194516526.1413920731501
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Should C++ state that C11's underscore keywords are aliase=
s to the equivalent C++ versions? It would be nice for header compati=
bility.<br><br><span style=3D"font-family: courier new,monospace;">_Static_=
assert</span> -> <span style=3D"font-family: courier new,monospace;">sta=
tic_assert</span><br><span style=3D"font-family: courier new,monospace;">_A=
lignas</span> -> <span style=3D"font-family: courier new,monospace;">ali=
gnas</span><br><span style=3D"font-family: courier new,monospace;">_Alignof=
</span> -> <span style=3D"font-family: courier new,monospace;">alignof</=
span><br><span style=3D"font-family: courier new,monospace;">_Pragma</span>=
-> <span style=3D"font-family: courier new,monospace;">#pragma</span>&n=
bsp; (this one is already in C++)<br><span style=3D"font-family: courier ne=
w,monospace;">_Bool</span> -> <span style=3D"font-family: courier new,mo=
nospace;">int</span><br><span style=3D"font-family: courier new,monospace;"=
>_Noreturn</span> -> <span style=3D"font-family: courier new,monospace;"=
>[[noreturn]]</span><br><span style=3D"font-family: courier new,monospace;"=
>_Thread_local</span> -> <span style=3D"font-family: courier new,monospa=
ce;">thread_local</span><br><br>These don't make sense in C++ (unless we wa=
nted to hardwire std::complex for two of them):<br><br><span style=3D"font-=
family: courier new,monospace;">_Complex<br>_Generic<br>_Imaginary<br><br>_=
Bool</span> is also problematic, and maybe leaving it out would be wise.<br=
><br>Melissa<br></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
--- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposa=
ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<=
/a>.<br />
------=_Part_3323_1194516526.1413920731501--
.
Author: Douglas Boffey <douglas.boffey@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 04:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
Raw View
------=_Part_605_763605428.1414065017628
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Tuesday, 21 October 2014 20:45:31 UTC+1, Myriachan wrote:
>
> Should C++ state that C11's underscore keywords are aliases to the
> equivalent C++ versions? It would be nice for header compatibility.
>
> _Static_assert -> static_assert
> _Alignas -> alignas
> _Alignof -> alignof
> _Pragma -> #pragma (this one is already in C++)
> _Bool -> int
> _Noreturn -> [[noreturn]]
> _Thread_local -> thread_local
>
> These don't make sense in C++ (unless we wanted to hardwire std::complex
> for two of them):
>
> _Complex
> _Generic
> _Imaginary
>
> _Bool is also problematic, and maybe leaving it out would be wise.
>
> Melissa
>
Why? Identifiers beginning _<capital letter> are specifically reserved for
the std library. There should be no benefit for user code.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
------=_Part_605_763605428.1414065017628
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><BR>On Tuesday, 21 October 2014 20:45:31 UTC+1, Myriachan =
wrote:=20
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex=
; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3Dgmail_quote>
<DIV dir=3Dltr>Should C++ state that C11's underscore keywords are aliases =
to the equivalent C++ versions? It would be nice for header compatibi=
lity.<BR><BR><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: courier new, monospace">_Static_as=
sert</SPAN> -> <SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: courier new, monospace">stati=
c_assert</SPAN><BR><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: courier new, monospace">_Ali=
gnas</SPAN> -> <SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: courier new, monospace">align=
as</SPAN><BR><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: courier new, monospace">_Alignof</=
SPAN> -> <SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: courier new, monospace">alignof</SP=
AN><BR><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: courier new, monospace">_Pragma</SPAN> -=
> <SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: courier new, monospace">#pragma</SPAN>&nbs=
p; (this one is already in C++)<BR><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: courier new,=
monospace">_Bool</SPAN> -> <SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: courier new, mon=
ospace">int</SPAN><BR><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: courier new, monospace">_=
Noreturn</SPAN> -> <SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: courier new, monospace">[=
[noreturn]]</SPAN><BR><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: courier new, monospace">_=
Thread_local</SPAN> -> <SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: courier new, monospac=
e">thread_local</SPAN><BR><BR>These don't make sense in C++ (unless we want=
ed to hardwire std::complex for two of them):<BR><BR><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FA=
MILY: courier new, monospace">_Complex<BR>_Generic<BR>_Imaginary<BR><BR>_Bo=
ol</SPAN> is also problematic, and maybe leaving it out would be wise.<BR><=
BR>Melissa<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>Why? Identifiers beginning _<capital letter> are specifica=
lly reserved for the std library. There should be no benefit for user=
code.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
--- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposa=
ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<=
/a>.<br />
------=_Part_605_763605428.1414065017628--
.
Author: Thiago Macieira <thiago@macieira.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:38:22 -0700
Raw View
On Tuesday 21 October 2014 12:45:31 Myriachan wrote:
> Should C++ state that C11's underscore keywords are aliases to the
> equivalent C++ versions? It would be nice for header compatibility.
>
> _Static_assert -> static_assert
> _Alignas -> alignas
> _Alignof -> alignof
> _Pragma -> #pragma (this one is already in C++)
> _Bool -> int
> _Noreturn -> [[noreturn]]
> _Thread_local -> thread_local
Aside from the noreturn one, the only thing we need is to allow including the
C11 headers like stdbool.h that #define the C++11 keyword to the C11
equivalent, but require that those headers are no-op.
That is, please make the following valid C++ code:
#include <assert.h>
#include <stdalign.h>
#include <stdatomic.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <stdnoreturn.h>
#include <threads.h>
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
.
Author: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:19:15 -0700
Raw View
--001a11c28b1646aef005061cc7e3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Thiago Macieira <thiago@macieira.org>
wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 October 2014 12:45:31 Myriachan wrote:
> > Should C++ state that C11's underscore keywords are aliases to the
> > equivalent C++ versions? It would be nice for header compatibility.
> >
> > _Static_assert -> static_assert
> > _Alignas -> alignas
> > _Alignof -> alignof
> > _Pragma -> #pragma (this one is already in C++)
> > _Bool -> int
> > _Noreturn -> [[noreturn]]
> > _Thread_local -> thread_local
>
> Aside from the noreturn one, the only thing we need is to allow including
> the
> C11 headers like stdbool.h that #define the C++11 keyword to the C11
> equivalent, but require that those headers are no-op.
>
> That is, please make the following valid C++ code:
>
Who are you asking to do this? Someone needs to do the necessary research
to figure out what changes are needed, then write and present a paper. If
no-one cares enough to do this, it will not happen.
> #include <assert.h>
> #include <stdalign.h>
>
These are already valid.
> #include <stdatomic.h>
>
C's _Atomic was designed so that you could mostly write
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
#include <atomic>
#define my_atomic(x) std::atomic<x>
#else
#include <stdatomic.h>
#define my_atomic(x) _Atomic(x)
#endif
(Note that C++ has not really synced up with C11 features, just C99 ones.)
Perhaps it would be better if <stdatomic.h> did this for you, but that'd
either require changes to the C standard library to define a macro with a
different name, or for your "C++-compatible" header to invoke undefined
behavior by using a reserved identifier. Alas.
#include <stdbool.h>
>
This is already valid.
> #include <stdnoreturn.h>
>
Again possible but not yet valid.
> #include <threads.h>
How would the C/C++ interoperability story play out here?
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
--001a11c28b1646aef005061cc7e3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
hu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Thiago Macieira <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:thiago@macieira.org" target=3D"_blank">thiago@macieira.org</a>&g=
t;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On Tues=
day 21 October 2014 12:45:31 Myriachan wrote:<br>
> Should C++ state that C11's underscore keywords are aliases to the=
<br>
> equivalent C++ versions?=C2=A0 It would be nice for header compatibili=
ty.<br>
><br>
> _Static_assert -> static_assert<br>
> _Alignas -> alignas<br>
> _Alignof -> alignof<br>
> _Pragma -> #pragma=C2=A0 (this one is already in C++)<br>
> _Bool -> int<br>
> _Noreturn -> [[noreturn]]<br>
> _Thread_local -> thread_local<br>
<br>
</span>Aside from the noreturn one, the only thing we need is to allow incl=
uding the<br>
C11 headers like stdbool.h that #define the C++11 keyword to the C11<br>
equivalent, but require that those headers are no-op.<br>
<br>
That is, please make the following valid C++ code:<br></blockquote><div><br=
></div><div>Who are you asking to do this? Someone needs to do the necessar=
y research to figure out what changes are needed, then write and present a =
paper. If no-one cares enough to do this, it will not happen.</div><div>=C2=
=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;borde=
r-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
#include <assert.h><br>
#include <stdalign.h><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>These are a=
lready valid.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
#include <stdatomic.h><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>C's _A=
tomic was designed so that you could mostly write</div><div><br></div><div>=
#if __cplusplus >=3D 201103L</div><div>=C2=A0 #include <atomic></d=
iv><div>=C2=A0 #define my_atomic(x) std::atomic<x></div><div>#else</d=
iv><div>=C2=A0 #include <stdatomic.h></div><div>=C2=A0 #define my_ato=
mic(x) _Atomic(x)</div><div>#endif</div><div><br></div><div>(Note that C++ =
has not really synced up with C11 features, just C99 ones.) Perhaps it woul=
d be better if <stdatomic.h> did this for you, but that'd either =
require changes to the C standard library to define a macro with a differen=
t name, or for your "C++-compatible" header to invoke undefined b=
ehavior by using a reserved identifier. Alas.</div><div><br></div><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc so=
lid;padding-left:1ex">
#include <stdbool.h><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is alre=
ady valid.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
#include <stdnoreturn.h><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Again po=
ssible but not yet valid.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1=
ex">
#include <threads.h></blockquote><div><br></div><div>How would the C/=
C++ interoperability story play out here?<br></div></div></div></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
--- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposa=
ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<=
/a>.<br />
--001a11c28b1646aef005061cc7e3--
.
Author: Myriachan <myriachan@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 22:47:50 -0700 (PDT)
Raw View
------=_Part_1033_929317021.1414129670609
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 1:19:17 PM UTC-7, Richard Smith wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Thiago Macieira <thi...@macieira.org
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 21 October 2014 12:45:31 Myriachan wrote:
>> > Should C++ state that C11's underscore keywords are aliases to the
>> > equivalent C++ versions? It would be nice for header compatibility.
>> >
>> > _Static_assert -> static_assert
>> > _Alignas -> alignas
>> > _Alignof -> alignof
>> > _Pragma -> #pragma (this one is already in C++)
>> > _Bool -> int
>> > _Noreturn -> [[noreturn]]
>> > _Thread_local -> thread_local
>>
>> Aside from the noreturn one, the only thing we need is to allow including
>> the
>> C11 headers like stdbool.h that #define the C++11 keyword to the C11
>> equivalent, but require that those headers are no-op.
>>
>> That is, please make the following valid C++ code:
>>
>
> Who are you asking to do this? Someone needs to do the necessary research
> to figure out what changes are needed, then write and present a paper. If
> no-one cares enough to do this, it will not happen.
>
>
If something I propose gets some kind of consensus that it's a good idea, I
would write a paper. But if there isn't consensus--in other words, my idea
is bad--it would be a waste to write a formal paper, right? So far, I
haven't really proposed anything that got true consensus.
Melissa
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
------=_Part_1033_929317021.1414129670609
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">On Thursday, October 23, 2014 1:19:17 PM UTC-7, Richard Sm=
ith wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left:=
0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><di=
v><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Thiago Macie=
ira <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"javascript:" target=3D"_blank" gdf-obf=
uscated-mailto=3D"zprRS5DkQP0J" onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D'javascript:';re=
turn true;" onclick=3D"this.href=3D'javascript:';return true;">thi...@macie=
ira.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On Tu=
esday 21 October 2014 12:45:31 Myriachan wrote:<br>
> Should C++ state that C11's underscore keywords are aliases to the<br>
> equivalent C++ versions? It would be nice for header compatibili=
ty.<br>
><br>
> _Static_assert -> static_assert<br>
> _Alignas -> alignas<br>
> _Alignof -> alignof<br>
> _Pragma -> #pragma (this one is already in C++)<br>
> _Bool -> int<br>
> _Noreturn -> [[noreturn]]<br>
> _Thread_local -> thread_local<br>
<br>
</span>Aside from the noreturn one, the only thing we need is to allow incl=
uding the<br>
C11 headers like stdbool.h that #define the C++11 keyword to the C11<br>
equivalent, but require that those headers are no-op.<br>
<br>
That is, please make the following valid C++ code:<br></blockquote><div><br=
></div><div>Who are you asking to do this? Someone needs to do the necessar=
y research to figure out what changes are needed, then write and present a =
paper. If no-one cares enough to do this, it will not happen.</div><div>&nb=
sp;</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>If something I propose get=
s some kind of consensus that it's a good idea, I would write a paper. =
; But if there isn't consensus--in other words, my idea is bad--it would be=
a waste to write a formal paper, right? So far, I haven't really pro=
posed anything that got true consensus.<br><br>Melissa<br></div></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
--- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposa=
ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<=
/a>.<br />
------=_Part_1033_929317021.1414129670609--
.
Author: Thiago Macieira <thiago@macieira.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 23:06:47 -0700
Raw View
On Thursday 23 October 2014 13:19:15 Richard Smith wrote:
> > That is, please make the following valid C++ code:
> Who are you asking to do this? Someone needs to do the necessary research
> to figure out what changes are needed, then write and present a paper. If
> no-one cares enough to do this, it will not happen.
The changes needed are simply that the headers don't do anything in C++ mode.
Just make sure that they exist and are no-ops in C++, except for
stdnoreturn.h, which would #define noreturn [[noreturn]]
The C++11 definition of <atomic> already contains a C-compatible interface, so
we don't need to do anything about it.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
.
Author: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@axiomatics.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 18:13:44 -0800
Raw View
Myriachan <myriachan@gmail.com> writes:
| Should C++ state that C11's underscore keywords are aliases to the
| equivalent C++ versions?=C2=A0 It would be nice for header compatibility.
|=20
| _Static_assert -> static_assert
| _Alignas -> alignas
| _Alignof -> alignof
| _Pragma -> #pragma=C2=A0 (this one is already in C++)
| _Bool -> int
| _Noreturn -> [[noreturn]]
| _Thread_local -> thread_local
|=20
| These don't make sense in C++ (unless we wanted to hardwire
| std::complex for two of them):
|=20
| _Complex
| _Generic
| _Imaginary
|=20
| _Bool is also problematic, and maybe leaving it out would be wise.
|=20
| Melissa
I am having hard time understanding this. =20
1. C++ develops a feature
2. C thinks its likes them, then adopt them with ugly names possibly
with different semantics.
3. Now, C++ has to say it makes the ugly names an alias for the standard
features it already has.
That is a nice scheme to corrupt a language.
-- Gaby
--=20
---=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposa=
ls/.
.
Author: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@axiomatics.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 18:15:01 -0800
Raw View
Thiago Macieira <thiago@macieira.org> writes:
| On Tuesday 21 October 2014 12:45:31 Myriachan wrote:
| > Should C++ state that C11's underscore keywords are aliases to the
| > equivalent C++ versions? It would be nice for header compatibility.
| >
| > _Static_assert -> static_assert
| > _Alignas -> alignas
| > _Alignof -> alignof
| > _Pragma -> #pragma (this one is already in C++)
| > _Bool -> int
| > _Noreturn -> [[noreturn]]
| > _Thread_local -> thread_local
|
| Aside from the noreturn one, the only thing we need is to allow including the
| C11 headers like stdbool.h that #define the C++11 keyword to the C11
| equivalent, but require that those headers are no-op.
Even that is pure madness. Unfortunately, LWG doesn't always see the trap.
See <cstdalign> :-((
-- Gaby
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
.
Author: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@axiomatics.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 18:16:29 -0800
Raw View
Thiago Macieira <thiago@macieira.org> writes:
| On Thursday 23 October 2014 13:19:15 Richard Smith wrote:
| > > That is, please make the following valid C++ code:
| > Who are you asking to do this? Someone needs to do the necessary research
| > to figure out what changes are needed, then write and present a paper. If
| > no-one cares enough to do this, it will not happen.
|
| The changes needed are simply that the headers don't do anything in C++ mode.
Please, let's stop the madness. No real codes depends on need this.
-- Gaby
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
.
Author: gmisocpp@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 18:27:48 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_3176_604430953.1415240868172
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Thursday, November 6, 2014 3:17:35 PM UTC+13, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> Thiago Macieira <thi...@macieira.org <javascript:>> writes:
>
> | On Thursday 23 October 2014 13:19:15 Richard Smith wrote:
> | > > That is, please make the following valid C++ code:
> | > Who are you asking to do this? Someone needs to do the necessary
> research
> | > to figure out what changes are needed, then write and present a paper.
> If
> | > no-one cares enough to do this, it will not happen.
> |
> | The changes needed are simply that the headers don't do anything in C++
> mode.
>
> Please, let's stop the madness. No real codes depends on need this.
>
> -- Gaby
>
Check you the ninja project. It uses plenty of C headers, but that it
doesn't need. I submitted a patch to change them to the C++ headers. i.e.
stdio -> cstdio, but they rejected it even though it compiled. I know other
projects that apparently do much the same.
The problem seems be is that C won't die and C++ won't live without being
repeatedly getting a blood transfusion from C that it doesn't want.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
------=_Part_3176_604430953.1415240868172
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>On Thursday, November 6, 2014 3:17:35 PM UTC+13, G=
abriel Dos Reis wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0p=
x 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); =
border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid;">Thiago Macieira <<a o=
nmousedown=3D"this.href=3D'javascript:';return true;" onclick=3D"this.href=
=3D'javascript:';return true;" href=3D"javascript:" target=3D"_blank" gdf-o=
bfuscated-mailto=3D"iwysDT-rTg4J">thi...@macieira.org</a>> writes:
<br>
<br>| On Thursday 23 October 2014 13:19:15 Richard Smith wrote:
<br>| > > That is, please make the following valid C++ code:
<br>| > Who are you asking to do this? Someone needs to do the necessary=
research
<br>| > to figure out what changes are needed, then write and present a =
paper. If
<br>| > no-one cares enough to do this, it will not happen.
<br>|=20
<br>| The changes needed are simply that the headers don't do anything in C=
++ mode.=20
<br>
<br>Please, let's stop the madness. No real codes depends on need thi=
s.
<br>
<br>-- Gaby
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Check you the ninja project. It u=
ses plenty of C headers, but that it doesn't need. I submitted a patch to c=
hange them to the C++ headers. i.e. stdio -> cstdio, but they rejected i=
t even though it compiled. I know other projects that apparently do much th=
e same.</div><div><br></div><div>The problem seems be is that C won't =
die and C++ won't live without being repeatedly getting a blood transfusion=
from C that it doesn't want.</div></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
--- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposa=
ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<=
/a>.<br />
------=_Part_3176_604430953.1415240868172--
.
Author: gmisocpp@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 18:29:48 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_3299_1627775869.1415240988815
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Forget what I said.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
------=_Part_3299_1627775869.1415240988815
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
<div dir="ltr"><div>Forget what I said. </div></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
--- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a href="mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href="mailto:std-proposals@isocpp.org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href="http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/</a>.<br />
------=_Part_3299_1627775869.1415240988815--
.
Author: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@axiomatics.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 18:52:14 -0800
Raw View
gmisocpp@gmail.com writes:
| On Thursday, November 6, 2014 3:17:35 PM UTC+13, Gabriel Dos Reis
| wrote:
|=20
| Thiago Macieira <thi...@macieira.org> writes:=20
| =20
| | On Thursday 23 October 2014 13:19:15 Richard Smith wrote:=20
| | > > That is, please make the following valid C++ code:=20
| | > Who are you asking to do this? Someone needs to do the
| necessary research=20
| | > to figure out what changes are needed, then write and present
| a paper. If=20
| | > no-one cares enough to do this, it will not happen.=20
| |=20
| | The changes needed are simply that the headers don't do anything
| in C++ mode.=20
| =20
| Please, let's stop the madness. =C2=A0No real codes depends on need
| this.=20
| =20
| -- Gaby=20
| =20
|=20
| Check you the ninja project.=C2=A0It uses plenty of C headers, but that i=
t
| doesn't need.
Is that a feature? Why?
| I submitted a patch to change them to the C++ headers.
| i.e. stdio -> cstdio, but they rejected it even though it compiled. I
| know other projects that apparently do much the same.
|=20
| The problem=C2=A0seems be is that C won't die and C++ won't live without
| being repeatedly getting a blood transfusion from C that it doesn't
| want.
If the specific scenario under discussion is viewed as boold
transfusion, it is a poisonous one.=20
-- Gaby
--=20
---=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposa=
ls/.
.
Author: gmisocpp@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 20:07:30 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_805_1477298495.1415246850638
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
ok, it's topic, but I'll go out on a limb and say:
I think C won't die and C++ won't live has been the problem.
I wonder if the answer to that problem is:
1. the C language committee needs to die / merge with the C++ committee.
2. template meta programming as is currently happening needs to die, i.e.
concepts needs to arrive.
- so templates don't scare C programmers away from C++.
3. C/C++ unification needs to happen - remove the incompatible bits where
possible.
- so people can come to C++ from C easily.
4. We bring in those papers that unify the function / method syntax.
5. modules needs to happen.
- and we use this opportunity to fix whatever other incompatibilities we
need since we'll probably break a lot in this.
back on topic and part of 3, we keep working on a safer VLA and that makes
alloca unneeded, to be more back on topic.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
------=_Part_805_1477298495.1415246850638
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>ok, it's topic, but I'll go out on a limb and say:</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>I think C won't die and C++ won't live has been=
the problem.</div><div><br></div><div>I wonder if the answer to that =
problem is:</div><div>1. the C language committee needs to die / =
merge with the C++ committee.</div><div>2. template meta programming as is =
currently happening needs to die, i.e. concepts needs to arrive.</div><div>=
- so templates don't scare C programmers away from C++.</div><div><div><div=
><div>3. C/C++ unification needs to happen - remove the incompatible bits w=
here possible.</div><div>- so people can come to C++ from C easily.</div><d=
iv>4. We bring in those papers that unify the function / method syntax.</di=
v><div><div>5. modules needs to happen.</div><div>- and we use this opportu=
nity to fix whatever other incompatibilities we need since we'll proba=
bly break a lot in this.</div><div><br></div><div>back on topic and part of=
3, we keep working on a safer VLA and that makes alloca unneeded, to be mo=
re back on topic.</div></div></div></div></div></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
--- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposa=
ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<=
/a>.<br />
------=_Part_805_1477298495.1415246850638--
.
Author: Thiago Macieira <thiago@macieira.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 22:50:46 -0500
Raw View
On Wednesday 05 November 2014 20:07:30 gmisocpp@gmail.com wrote:
> 3. C/C++ unification needs to happen - remove the incompatible bits where
> possible.
> - so people can come to C++ from C easily.
And this is exactly what I meant in my email. C-only headers in the C standard
only hurt the cause. Right now, you cannot officially include stdbool.h, a C99
header, in C++. Most implementations say that you can, as an extension, So
let's standardise that "extension" and declare that stdbool.h is a no-op in
C++, thus making it allowed.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
.
Author: Thiago Macieira <thiago@macieira.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 22:52:28 -0500
Raw View
On Wednesday 05 November 2014 18:15:01 Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Thiago Macieira <thiago@macieira.org> writes:
> | On Tuesday 21 October 2014 12:45:31 Myriachan wrote:
> | > Should C++ state that C11's underscore keywords are aliases to the
> | > equivalent C++ versions? It would be nice for header compatibility.
> | >
> | > _Static_assert -> static_assert
> | > _Alignas -> alignas
> | > _Alignof -> alignof
> | > _Pragma -> #pragma (this one is already in C++)
> | > _Bool -> int
> | > _Noreturn -> [[noreturn]]
> | > _Thread_local -> thread_local
> |
> | Aside from the noreturn one, the only thing we need is to allow including
> | the C11 headers like stdbool.h that #define the C++11 keyword to the C11
> | equivalent, but require that those headers are no-op.
>
> Even that is pure madness. Unfortunately, LWG doesn't always see the trap.
> See <cstdalign> :-((
Which is why the C features should be the same as the C++ features. Making
them subtly different is in no-one's interest. Since C++ is leading the way,
the C should just copy what we define, but it does put the burden on us on
defining something that can exist in C.
For that matter, can you say where the C11 _Static_assert is different from the
C++11 one?
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
.
Author: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@axiomatics.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 14:41:28 -0800
Raw View
Thiago Macieira <thiago@macieira.org> writes:
| On Wednesday 05 November 2014 20:07:30 gmisocpp@gmail.com wrote:
| > 3. C/C++ unification needs to happen - remove the incompatible bits where
| > possible.
| > - so people can come to C++ from C easily.
|
| And this is exactly what I meant in my email. C-only headers in the C standard
| only hurt the cause. Right now, you cannot officially include stdbool.h, a C99
| header, in C++.
#ifndef __cplusplus
# include <stdbool.h>
#endif
| Most implementations say that you can, as an extension, So
| let's standardise that "extension" and declare that stdbool.h is a no-op in
| C++, thus making it allowed.
-- Gaby
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
.
Author: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@axiomatics.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 14:46:35 -0800
Raw View
Thiago Macieira <thiago@macieira.org> writes:
| On Wednesday 05 November 2014 18:15:01 Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Thiago Macieira <thiago@macieira.org> writes:
| > | On Tuesday 21 October 2014 12:45:31 Myriachan wrote:
| > | > Should C++ state that C11's underscore keywords are aliases to the
| > | > equivalent C++ versions? It would be nice for header compatibility.
| > | >
| > | > _Static_assert -> static_assert
| > | > _Alignas -> alignas
| > | > _Alignof -> alignof
| > | > _Pragma -> #pragma (this one is already in C++)
| > | > _Bool -> int
| > | > _Noreturn -> [[noreturn]]
| > | > _Thread_local -> thread_local
| > |
| > | Aside from the noreturn one, the only thing we need is to allow including
| > | the C11 headers like stdbool.h that #define the C++11 keyword to the C11
| > | equivalent, but require that those headers are no-op.
| >
| > Even that is pure madness. Unfortunately, LWG doesn't always see the trap.
| > See <cstdalign> :-((
|
| Which is why the C features should be the same as the C++ features. Making
| them subtly different is in no-one's interest. Since C++ is leading the way,
| the C should just copy what we define, but it does put the burden on us on
| defining something that can exist in C.
I don't see how the last part follows.
| For that matter, can you say where the C11 _Static_assert is different from the
| C++11 one?
I see no need for having the uglification. The next thing we know is we
have a civil war ^W^Wdiscussion about the proper way to spell it.
-- Gaby
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
.
Author: Nevin Liber <nevin@eviloverlord.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 16:48:42 -0600
Raw View
--047d7bea3eecc6029c05074c9fd7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 7 November 2014 16:46, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@axiomatics.org> wrote:
> The next thing we know is we
> have a civil war ^W^Wdiscussion about the proper way to spell it.
>
Maybe we should start a bike shed SG (Study Group)? :-)
--
Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com> (847) 691-1404
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
--047d7bea3eecc6029c05074c9fd7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On 7 November 2014 16:46, Gabriel Dos Reis <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D=
"mailto:gdr@axiomatics.org" target=3D"_blank">gdr@axiomatics.org</a>></s=
pan> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=3D":5s0" class=3D"a3s=
" style=3D"overflow:hidden">The next thing we know is we<br>
have a civil war ^W^Wdiscussion about the proper way to spell it.<br></div>=
</blockquote></div><br>Maybe we should start a bike shed SG (Study Group)? =
:-)<br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_signatur=
e">=C2=A0Nevin ":-)" Liber=C2=A0 <mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:nev=
in@eviloverlord.com" target=3D"_blank">nevin@eviloverlord.com</a>>=C2=A0=
(847) 691-1404</div>
</div></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
--- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposa=
ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<=
/a>.<br />
--047d7bea3eecc6029c05074c9fd7--
.
Author: Tony V E <tvaneerd@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 18:05:11 -0500
Raw View
<html><head></head><body style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); lin=
e-height: initial;"> =
<div style=3D"width: 100%; font-size: initia=
l; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); =
text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Don't tempt me.=
</div> =
<div style=
=3D"width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', san=
s-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rg=
b(255, 255, 255);"><br style=3D"display:initial"></div> =
=
<div style=3D"font-size: initial; fon=
t-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-a=
lign: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Sent from my BlackBer=
ry 10 smartphone.</div> =
=
<table width=3D"100%" st=
yle=3D"background-color:white;border-spacing:0px;"> <tbody><tr><td colspan=
=3D"2" style=3D"font-size: initial; text-align: initial; background-color: =
rgb(255, 255, 255);"> <div style=3D"border-style:=
solid none none; border-top-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-top-width: 1=
pt; padding: 3pt 0in 0in; font-family: Tahoma, 'BB Alpha Sans', 'Slate Pro'=
; font-size: 10pt;"> <div><b>From: </b>Nevin Liber</div><div><b>Sent: </b>=
Friday, November 7, 2014 5:49 PM</div><div><b>To: </b>std-proposals@isocpp.=
org</div><div><b>Reply To: </b>std-proposals@isocpp.org</div><div><b>Subjec=
t: </b>Re: [std-proposals] C11 keywords</div></div></td></tr></tbody></tabl=
e><div style=3D"border-style: solid none none; border-top-color: rgb(186, 1=
88, 209); border-top-width: 1pt; font-size: initial; text-align: initial; b=
ackground-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><br><div id=3D"_originalContent=
" style=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"=
gmail_quote">On 7 November 2014 16:46, Gabriel Dos Reis <span dir=3D"ltr">&=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gdr@axiomatics.org" target=3D"_blank">gdr@axiomatics.o=
rg</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=3D":5s0"=
class=3D"a3s" style=3D"overflow:hidden">The next thing we know is we<br>
have a civil war ^W^Wdiscussion about the proper way to spell it.<br></div>=
</blockquote></div><br>Maybe we should start a bike shed SG (Study Group)? =
:-)<br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_signatur=
e"> Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:nevin@evilove=
rlord.com" target=3D"_blank">nevin@eviloverlord.com</a>> (847) 691=
-1404</div>
</div></div>
<p></p>
-- <br>
<br>
--- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposa=
ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<=
/a>.<br>
<br><!--end of _originalContent --></div></body></html>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
--- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposa=
ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<=
/a>.<br />
.
Author: Nevin Liber <nevin@eviloverlord.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 17:07:07 -0600
Raw View
--001a11c16360a1b2e405074ce1e6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 7 November 2014 17:05, Tony V E <tvaneerd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don't tempt me.
>
I nominate you as chair. :-)
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
> *From: *Nevin Liber
> *Sent: *Friday, November 7, 2014 5:49 PM
> *To: *std-proposals@isocpp.org
> *Reply To: *std-proposals@isocpp.org
> *Subject: *Re: [std-proposals] C11 keywords
>
>
> On 7 November 2014 16:46, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@axiomatics.org> wrote:
>
>> The next thing we know is we
>> have a civil war ^W^Wdiscussion about the proper way to spell it.
>>
>
> Maybe we should start a bike shed SG (Study Group)? :-)
>
>
> --
> Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com> (847) 691-1404
>
> --
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
> To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
> Visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
>
> --
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
> To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
> Visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
>
--
Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com> (847) 691-1404
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
--001a11c16360a1b2e405074ce1e6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">On 7 November 2014 17:05, Tony V E <span dir=3D"ltr"><<=
a href=3D"mailto:tvaneerd@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">tvaneerd@gmail.com</=
a>></span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quot=
e"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left=
:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"background-color:rgb(255,25=
5,255);line-height:initial"> =
<div style=3D"width:100%;font-size:i=
nitial;font-family:Calibri,'Slate Pro',sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,1=
25);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Don't tempt m=
e.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I nominate you as chair. :-)=
</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 =
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"backgro=
und-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-height:initial"><div style=3D"width:100%;fo=
nt-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,'Slate Pro',sans-serif;color:rg=
b(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> </div> =
=
<div style=3D"widt=
h:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,'Slate Pro',sans-serif=
;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"=
><br style=3D"display:initial"></div> =
=
<div style=3D"font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,=
9;Slate Pro',sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;backgro=
und-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.</div> =
=
=
<table width=3D"100%" style=3D"background-color:wh=
ite;border-spacing:0px"> <tbody><tr><td colspan=3D"2" style=3D"font-size:in=
itial;text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> =
<div style=3D"border-style:solid none none;border-top-color:rgb=
(181,196,223);border-top-width:1pt;padding:3pt 0in 0in;font-family:Tahoma,&=
#39;BB Alpha Sans','Slate Pro';font-size:10pt"> <div><b>From: =
</b>Nevin Liber</div><div><b>Sent: </b>Friday, November 7, 2014 5:49 PM</di=
v><div><b>To: </b><a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp.org" target=3D"_bl=
ank">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a></div><div><b>Reply To: </b><a href=3D"mai=
lto:std-proposals@isocpp.org" target=3D"_blank">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a=
></div><div><b>Subject: </b>Re: [std-proposals] C11 keywords</div></div></t=
d></tr></tbody></table><div style=3D"border-style:solid none none;border-to=
p-color:rgb(186,188,209);border-top-width:1pt;font-size:initial;text-align:=
initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"></div><br><div><div><div class=
=3D"h5"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">On 7 November 2014 16:46, Gabriel Dos Reis <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a=
href=3D"mailto:gdr@axiomatics.org" target=3D"_blank">gdr@axiomatics.org</a=
>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 =
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"overflo=
w:hidden">The next thing we know is we<br>
have a civil war ^W^Wdiscussion about the proper way to spell it.<br></div>=
</blockquote></div><br>Maybe we should start a bike shed SG (Study Group)? =
:-)<br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div>=C2=A0Nevin ":-)&q=
uot; Liber=C2=A0 <mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com" targe=
t=3D"_blank">nevin@eviloverlord.com</a>>=C2=A0 <a href=3D"tel:%28847%29%=
20691-1404" value=3D"+18476911404" target=3D"_blank">(847) 691-1404</a></di=
v>
</div></div>
<p></p></div></div>
-- <br><span class=3D"">
<br>
--- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org" target=3D"_=
blank">std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org" target=3D"_blank">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/" target=3D"_blank">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/gro=
up/std-proposals/</a>.<br>
<br></span></div></div><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">
<p></p>
-- <br>
<br>
--- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org" target=3D"_=
blank">std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org" target=3D"_blank">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/" target=3D"_blank">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/gro=
up/std-proposals/</a>.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br>=
<div class=3D"gmail_signature">=C2=A0Nevin ":-)" Liber=C2=A0 <=
mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com" target=3D"_blank">nevin@ev=
iloverlord.com</a>>=C2=A0 (847) 691-1404</div>
</div></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
--- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposa=
ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<=
/a>.<br />
--001a11c16360a1b2e405074ce1e6--
.
Author: Thiago Macieira <thiago@macieira.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 15:15:38 -0800
Raw View
On Friday 07 November 2014 14:41:28 Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | And this is exactly what I meant in my email. C-only headers in the C
> | standard only hurt the cause. Right now, you cannot officially include
> | stdbool.h, a C99 header, in C++.
>
> #ifndef __cplusplus
> # include <stdbool.h>
> #endif
Understood. But what's the harm in allowing the header in C++ as a no-op?
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
.
Author: Thiago Macieira <thiago@macieira.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 15:18:16 -0800
Raw View
On Friday 07 November 2014 14:46:35 Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | For that matter, can you say where the C11 _Static_assert is different
> | from the C++11 one?
>
> I see no need for having the uglification. The next thing we know is we
> have a civil war ^W^Wdiscussion about the proper way to spell it.
I'm not talking about the name. If you #include <assert.h>, then C code can
write static_assert, just like C++ code. The same applies to <stdbool.h> and
bool, <stdalign.h>, alignof and alignas.
I'm trying to understand your objection. Is it the standardisation of a header
that would be empty in C++? Or were you disagreeing with the names the C
standard adopted before header inclusion?
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
.
Author: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@axiomatics.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 08:07:18 -0800
Raw View
Thiago Macieira <thiago@macieira.org> writes:
| On Friday 07 November 2014 14:46:35 Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > | For that matter, can you say where the C11 _Static_assert is different
| > | from the C++11 one?
| >
| > I see no need for having the uglification. The next thing we know is we
| > have a civil war ^W^Wdiscussion about the proper way to spell it.
|
| I'm not talking about the name. If you #include <assert.h>, then C code can
| write static_assert, just like C++ code. The same applies to <stdbool.h> and
| bool, <stdalign.h>, alignof and alignas.
|
| I'm trying to understand your objection. Is it the standardisation of a header
| that would be empty in C++? Or were you disagreeing with the names the C
| standard adopted before header inclusion?
My question is very simple: Why is it that C++ introduces a feature; that
feature gets basterdized by another language, then some people demand that
C++ must now provide a header for the basterdized version or a
brain-damaged version of the basterdized version (see <ctgmath>). That
reads to me as active corruption of the language.
-- Gaby
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
.
Author: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@axiomatics.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 08:12:57 -0800
Raw View
Thiago Macieira <thiago@macieira.org> writes:
| On Friday 07 November 2014 14:41:28 Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > | And this is exactly what I meant in my email. C-only headers in the C
| > | standard only hurt the cause. Right now, you cannot officially include
| > | stdbool.h, a C99 header, in C++.
| >
| > #ifndef __cplusplus
| > # include <stdbool.h>
| > #endif
|
| Understood.
Good, then we can move on; there is no "official impossibility"
| But what's the harm in allowing the header in C++ as a no-op?
Because the next argument is "precedence", "consistency", etc, to push
for madness (see <ctgmath>). The right thing to do is stop digging further.
-- Gaby
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
.
Author: Thiago Macieira <thiago@macieira.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 10:50:50 -0800
Raw View
On Saturday 08 November 2014 08:07:18 Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> My question is very simple: Why is it that C++ introduces a feature; that
> feature gets basterdized by another language, then some people demand that
> C++ must now provide a header for the basterdized version or a
> brain-damaged version of the basterdized version (see <ctgmath>). That
> reads to me as active corruption of the language.
Because it's not just "another language", it's C and people expect C++ to be a
superset of C. The parts of C that are inaccessible from C++ are the sore
points.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
.
Author: gmisocpp@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 16:57:02 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_1574_1625041896.1415494622708
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sunday, November 9, 2014 7:50:57 AM UTC+13, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Saturday 08 November 2014 08:07:18 Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > My question is very simple: Why is it that C++ introduces a feature;
> that
> > feature gets basterdized by another language, then some people demand
> that
> > C++ must now provide a header for the basterdized version or a
> > brain-damaged version of the basterdized version (see <ctgmath>). That
> > reads to me as active corruption of the language.
>
> Because it's not just "another language", it's C and people expect C++ to
> be a
> superset of C. The parts of C that are inaccessible from C++ are the sore
> points.
>
>
For that expectation to be a realistic doesn't there need to be one C/C++
Standards Committee, not one for C and another for C++?
And doesn't that really mean one language?
Without that, won't there be pressure for C++ to take say C duplication or
concurrency features etc. like Cilk if C++ does something different? Where
does this end?
While C use seems to rise/hold and C++ use seems to fall (if measures like
the Tiobe index are to be believed and if I read them correctly?), what
merging is reasonable or possible anyway?
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
------=_Part_1574_1625041896.1415494622708
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>On Sunday, November 9, 2014 7:50:57 AM UTC+13, Thi=
ago Macieira wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); bor=
der-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid;">On Saturday 08 November 201=
4 08:07:18 Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
<br>> My question is very simple: Why is it that C++ introduces a featur=
e; that
<br>> feature gets basterdized by another language, then some people dem=
and that
<br>> C++ must now provide a header for the basterdized version or a
<br>> brain-damaged version of the basterdized version (see <ctgmath&=
gt;). That
<br>> reads to me as active corruption of the language.
<br>
<br>Because it's not just "another language", it's C and people expect C++ =
to be a=20
<br>superset of C. The parts of C that are inaccessible from C++ are the so=
re=20
<br>points.
<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>For that expectation to be a reali=
stic doesn't there need to be one C/C++ Standards Committee, not =
one for C and another for C++?</div><div>And doesn't that really mean one l=
anguage?</div><div><br></div><div>Without that, won't there be pressure&nbs=
p;for C++ to take say C duplication or concurrency features etc. like =
Cilk if C++ does something different? Where does this end?</div><div><br></=
div><div>While C use seems to rise/hold and C++ use seems to fall (if measu=
res like the Tiobe index are to be believed and if I read them correctly?),=
what merging is reasonable or possible anyway?</div></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
--- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposa=
ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<=
/a>.<br />
------=_Part_1574_1625041896.1415494622708--
.
Author: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@axiomatics.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 19:56:01 -0800
Raw View
Thiago Macieira <thiago@macieira.org> writes:
| On Saturday 08 November 2014 08:07:18 Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > My question is very simple: Why is it that C++ introduces a feature; that
| > feature gets basterdized by another language, then some people demand that
| > C++ must now provide a header for the basterdized version or a
| > brain-damaged version of the basterdized version (see <ctgmath>). That
| > reads to me as active corruption of the language.
|
| Because it's not just "another language",
Sorry to disappoint you, but it is another language. It has its own
standards, its own committee that operates by its own rules at its own pace.
| it's C and people expect C++ to be a superset of C.
Those people are mistaken, and nobody is doing them good or service by
willfully maintaining them in ignorance.
| The parts of C that are inaccessible from C++ are the sore points.
I can see how some people can be sorely disappointed in realizing that
they have been duped into believing that C is not anoter language.
-- Gaby
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
.
Author: Joel FALCOU <joel.falcou@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 09:12:53 +0100
Raw View
On 09/11/2014 04:56, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Thiago Macieira <thiago@macieira.org> writes:
>
> | On Saturday 08 November 2014 08:07:18 Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | > My question is very simple: Why is it that C++ introduces a feature; that
> | > feature gets basterdized by another language, then some people demand that
> | > C++ must now provide a header for the basterdized version or a
> | > brain-damaged version of the basterdized version (see <ctgmath>). That
> | > reads to me as active corruption of the language.
> |
> | Because it's not just "another language",
>
> Sorry to disappoint you, but it is another language. It has its own
> standards, its own committee that operates by its own rules at its own pace.
Indeed. I think C++ has suffered more than gained anything by trying to
appease the C crowd this way.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
.
Author: Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 11:39:49 +0100
Raw View
On 2014-11-08 17:07, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Thiago Macieira <thiago@macieira.org> writes:
>
> | On Friday 07 November 2014 14:46:35 Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | > | For that matter, can you say where the C11 _Static_assert is different
> | > | from the C++11 one?
> | >
> | > I see no need for having the uglification. The next thing we know is we
> | > have a civil war ^W^Wdiscussion about the proper way to spell it.
> |
> | I'm not talking about the name. If you #include <assert.h>, then C code can
> | write static_assert, just like C++ code. The same applies to <stdbool.h> and
> | bool, <stdalign.h>, alignof and alignas.
> |
> | I'm trying to understand your objection. Is it the standardisation of a header
> | that would be empty in C++? Or were you disagreeing with the names the C
> | standard adopted before header inclusion?
>
> My question is very simple: Why is it that C++ introduces a feature; that
> feature gets basterdized by another language, then some people demand that
> C++ must now provide a header for the basterdized version or a
> brain-damaged version of the basterdized version (see <ctgmath>). That
> reads to me as active corruption of the language.
>
+1
"As close as possible, but no closer."
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
.
Author: Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer@gmx.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 16:11:51 +0100
Raw View
On 11/08/2014 07:50 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Because it's not just "another language", it's C and people expect C++ to be a
> superset of C.
Sadly, that expectation is unfounded.
Jens
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
.
Author: Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer@gmx.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 16:12:13 +0100
Raw View
On 11/09/2014 01:57 AM, gmisocpp@gmail.com wrote:
> Because it's not just "another language", it's C and people expect C++ to be a
> superset of C. The parts of C that are inaccessible from C++ are the sore
> points.
>
>
> For that expectation to be a realistic doesn't there need to be one C/C++ Standards Committee, not one for C and another for C++?
That is one option, and one that you're not the first to voice.
> And doesn't that really mean one language?
Not really: We could continue to have two languages, but make sure
that evolution discussions have broader participation from the
respective other side. (There is already broad liaison between
WG14 (the C committee) and WG21 (the C++ committee). Maybe we
need to get better than that.)
> Without that, won't there be pressure for C++ to take say C duplication or concurrency features etc. like Cilk if C++ does something different? Where does this end?
SQL?
> While C use seems to rise/hold and C++ use seems to fall (if measures like the Tiobe index are to be believed and if I read them correctly?), what merging is reasonable or possible anyway?
I've got a hard time believing any particular ranking or "usage measures" of programming languages,
since those using public (= cheap) sources tend to ignore large portions of software development that
is entirely proprietary.
Jens
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
.
Author: Myriachan <myriachan@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 13:43:28 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_2385_663767363.1415569408114
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sunday, November 9, 2014 7:12:16 AM UTC-8, Jens Maurer wrote:
>
> On 11/09/2014 01:57 AM, gmis...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote:
> > Because it's not just "another language", it's C and people expect
> C++ to be a
> > superset of C. The parts of C that are inaccessible from C++ are the
> sore
> > points.
> >
> >
> > For that expectation to be a realistic doesn't there need to be one
> C/C++ Standards Committee, not one for C and another for C++?
>
> That is one option, and one that you're not the first to voice.
>
>
I think that the expectation is less about C++ being a literal superset of
C, but rather that the C Standard Library is accessible from C++.
> And doesn't that really mean one language?
>
> Not really: We could continue to have two languages, but make sure
> that evolution discussions have broader participation from the
> respective other side. (There is already broad liaison between
> WG14 (the C committee) and WG21 (the C++ committee). Maybe we
> need to get better than that.)
>
>
And yet C still added the completely-incompatible "complex" keyword,
something that C++ would never implement (given that the C++ world uses
templates for this). "complex int" will never be compilable in C++, since
we'd use "complex<int>".
> While C use seems to rise/hold and C++ use seems to fall (if measures
> like the Tiobe index are to be believed and if I read them correctly?),
> what merging is reasonable or possible anyway?
>
> I've got a hard time believing any particular ranking or "usage measures"
> of programming languages,
> since those using public (= cheap) sources tend to ignore large portions
> of software development that
> is entirely proprietary.
>
>
Same. As an example, Microsoft doesn't care about C99 and C11 for Visual
Studio, instead just implementing C++11/14 features instead.
Melissa
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
------=_Part_2385_663767363.1415569408114
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">On Sunday, November 9, 2014 7:12:16 AM UTC-8, Jens Maurer =
wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8=
ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">On 11/09/2014 01:57 AM, =
<a href=3D"javascript:" target=3D"_blank" gdf-obfuscated-mailto=3D"Ab_d3wjg=
l5UJ" onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D'javascript:';return true;" onclick=3D"thi=
s.href=3D'javascript:';return true;">gmis...@gmail.com</a> wrote:
<br>> Because it's not just "another language", it's C and=
people expect C++ to be a
<br>> superset of C. The parts of C that are inaccessible =
from C++ are the sore
<br>> points.
<br>>=20
<br>>=20
<br>> For that expectation to be a realistic doesn't there need to be on=
e C/C++ Standards Committee, not one for C and another for C++?
<br>
<br>That is one option, and one that you're not the first to voice.
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br><br>I think that the expectation is less about C+=
+ being a literal superset of C, but rather that the C Standard Library is =
accessible from C++.<br><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: =
1ex;">> And doesn't that really mean one language?
<br>
<br>Not really: We could continue to have two languages, but make sure
<br>that evolution discussions have broader participation from the
<br>respective other side. (There is already broad liaison between
<br>WG14 (the C committee) and WG21 (the C++ committee). Maybe we
<br>need to get better than that.)
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>And yet C still added the completely-incompatible=
"complex" keyword, something that C++ would never implement (given that th=
e C++ world uses templates for this). "complex int" will never be com=
pilable in C++, since we'd use "complex<int>".<br><br></div><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left:=
1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">> While C use seems to rise/hold and=
C++ use seems to fall (if measures like the Tiobe index are to be believed=
and if I read them correctly?), what merging is reasonable or possible any=
way?
<br>
<br>I've got a hard time believing any particular ranking or "usage measure=
s" of programming languages,
<br>since those using public (=3D cheap) sources tend to ignore large porti=
ons of software development that
<br>is entirely proprietary.
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>Same. As an example, Microsoft doesn't care=
about C99 and C11 for Visual Studio, instead just implementing C++11/14 fe=
atures instead.<br><br>Melissa<br></div></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
<br />
--- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposa=
ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:std-proposals@isocpp=
..org">std-proposals@isocpp.org</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/=
std-proposals/">http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<=
/a>.<br />
------=_Part_2385_663767363.1415569408114--
.
Author: Thiago Macieira <thiago@macieira.org>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 19:20:42 -0800
Raw View
On Sunday 09 November 2014 16:11:51 Jens Maurer wrote:
> On 11/08/2014 07:50 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Because it's not just "another language", it's C and people expect C++ to
> > be a superset of C.
>
> Sadly, that expectation is unfounded.
While you and I know that C++ is not a superset of C, it doesn't help that the
vast majority of developers thinks it is.
If the direction is to add more differences, those will stand out as more "sore
points". So the big question is whether they're worth it: will people learn
the differences, or will they just learn to avoid a particular feature?
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
.
Author: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@axiomatics.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 06:23:44 -0800
Raw View
Thiago Macieira <thiago@macieira.org> writes:
| On Sunday 09 November 2014 16:11:51 Jens Maurer wrote:
| > On 11/08/2014 07:50 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
| > > Because it's not just "another language", it's C and people expect C++ to
| > > be a superset of C.
| >
| > Sadly, that expectation is unfounded.
|
| While you and I know that C++ is not a superset of C, it doesn't help that the
| vast majority of developers thinks it is.
That may be true. But, it does not help not telling them the truth either.
| If the direction is to add more differences, those will stand out as more "sore
| points".
Note that these "differences" started with C taking C++ features and
turning them into something different.
| So the big question is whether they're worth it: will people learn
| the differences, or will they just learn to avoid a particular feature?
Anybody interested in the answer should ask WG14, first.
-- Gaby
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/.
.