> Right; we need to find a balance where the syntax we have is neither
> unnecessarily terse (to the point of causing readability and maintenance
> problems) nor unnecessarily verbose. It is up to the people proposing the
> change to demonstrate that this requirement is met, and the reactions on
> this thread seem to suggest that we are, so far, lacking a good argument
> that the proposed syntax meets the Goldilocks criterion.

I don't think that there is a single "just right" syntax. Some
declarations simply require heavier syntax (although the template
introduction syntax was added to alleviate some of that). Other
declarations should be able to be expressed simply and directly,
without extra notation.

There is a balance to be reached, but programmers need to find that
for themselves before pre-judging the syntax.

Andrew

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-discussion+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-discussion@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-discussion/.

.