Topic: static, thread_local and constexpr for structured bindings
Author: Nicolas Lesser <blitzrakete@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:25:43 -0800 (PST)
Raw View
------=_Part_4865_781425009.1517865943527
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_4866_1710073238.1517865943527"
------=_Part_4866_1710073238.1517865943527
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Here's my second waaayyy better proposal for allowed static, thread_local
and constexpr specifiers on structured bindings.
You can find the proposal
here: https://github.com/Rakete1111/SpecifiersForStructuredBindings/blob/master/StaticThreadLocalAndConstexprForStructuredBindings.md
It already got some feedback on the #future-standards channel on the Cpp
slack.
Any comments welcome :)
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/ff1d8702-ce31-4753-8280-45a85c844dcf%40isocpp.org.
------=_Part_4866_1710073238.1517865943527
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Here's my second waaayyy better proposal for allowed s=
tatic, thread_local and constexpr specifiers on structured bindings.<div>Yo=
u can find the proposal here:=C2=A0https://github.com/Rakete1111/Specifiers=
ForStructuredBindings/blob/master/StaticThreadLocalAndConstexprForStructure=
dBindings.md</div><div><br></div><div>It already got some feedback on the #=
future-standards channel on the Cpp slack.</div><div>Any comments welcome :=
)</div></div>
<p></p>
-- <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 />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/ff1d8702-ce31-4753-8280-45a85c844dcf%=
40isocpp.org?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.=
com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/ff1d8702-ce31-4753-8280-45a85c844dcf=
%40isocpp.org</a>.<br />
------=_Part_4866_1710073238.1517865943527--
------=_Part_4865_781425009.1517865943527--
.
Author: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 00:05:32 +0200
Raw View
On 5 February 2018 at 23:25, Nicolas Lesser <blitzrakete@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's my second waaayyy better proposal for allowed static, thread_local
> and constexpr specifiers on structured bindings.
> You can find the proposal here:
> https://github.com/Rakete1111/SpecifiersForStructuredBindings/blob/master/StaticThreadLocalAndConstexprForStructuredBindings.md
>
> It already got some feedback on the #future-standards channel on the Cpp
> slack.
> Any comments welcome :)
One point of confusion that was mentioned in the
discussion is whether the bindings are constexpr, or whether the whole
object can be constexpr and the bindings not,
what that means, and who cares, and why. Similarly, if indeed
thread_local and static are results of std::get<> instead
of member of an aggregate, can they be thread_local or static
separately from the whole object, what that means, who
cares, and why.
Those are the questions the design-exploration paper was hoped to
answer; i.e. is constexprness / thread_locality / staticness
of the bindings always separate from the whole object, or somehow
connected to it, is there a difference between aggregate
members and std::get<> results, and why.
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAFk2RUY9qHpxUbUKZz%2Bw1H8HkccYxvJcsrJAhthhBP3T6twiBA%40mail.gmail.com.
.
Author: Nicolas Lesser <blitzrakete@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 21:57:09 +0100
Raw View
--001a114821a4c727400564b9a7cc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Thanks for the reply! I updated my proposal based on your suggestions:
https://github.com/Rakete1111/cpp-standards-proposals/blob/master/StaticThreadLocalAndConstexprForStructuredBindings.md
If someone could take a look at it and suggest improvements, please do :)
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Ville Voutilainen <
ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 February 2018 at 23:25, Nicolas Lesser <blitzrakete@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here's my second waaayyy better proposal for allowed static, thread_local
> > and constexpr specifiers on structured bindings.
> > You can find the proposal here:
> > https://github.com/Rakete1111/SpecifiersForStructuredBinding
> s/blob/master/StaticThreadLocalAndConstexprForStructuredBindings.md
> >
> > It already got some feedback on the #future-standards channel on the Cpp
> > slack.
> > Any comments welcome :)
>
> One point of confusion that was mentioned in the
> discussion is whether the bindings are constexpr, or whether the whole
> object can be constexpr and the bindings not,
> what that means, and who cares, and why. Similarly, if indeed
> thread_local and static are results of std::get<> instead
> of member of an aggregate, can they be thread_local or static
> separately from the whole object, what that means, who
> cares, and why.
>
> Those are the questions the design-exploration paper was hoped to
> answer; i.e. is constexprness / thread_locality / staticness
> of the bindings always separate from the whole object, or somehow
> connected to it, is there a difference between aggregate
> members and std::get<> results, and why.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/a/
> isocpp.org/d/topic/std-proposals/sTi2KS1E8DU/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
> To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/
> isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAFk2RUY9qHpxUbUKZz%
> 2Bw1H8HkccYxvJcsrJAhthhBP3T6twiBA%40mail.gmail.com.
>
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CALmDwq3_%3DY%3Dy8rVn%3DMV9CX4NciYZTO3jf3oWH-6mNUobh%2BfSOA%40mail.gmail.com.
--001a114821a4c727400564b9a7cc
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Thanks for the reply! I updated my proposal based on your =
suggestions:<div><br></div><div><a href=3D"https://github.com/Rakete1111/cp=
p-standards-proposals/blob/master/StaticThreadLocalAndConstexprForStructure=
dBindings.md">https://github.com/Rakete1111/cpp-standards-proposals/blob/ma=
ster/StaticThreadLocalAndConstexprForStructuredBindings.md</a><br></div><di=
v><br></div><div>If someone could take a look at it and suggest improvement=
s, please do :)</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gma=
il_quote">On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Ville Voutilainen <span dir=3D"l=
tr"><<a href=3D"mailto:ville.voutilainen@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">vi=
lle.voutilainen@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex"><span class=3D"">On 5 February 2018 at 23:25, Nicolas Lesser <<a =
href=3D"mailto:blitzrakete@gmail.com">blitzrakete@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<=
br>
> Here's my second waaayyy better proposal for allowed static, threa=
d_local<br>
> and constexpr specifiers on structured bindings.<br>
> You can find the proposal here:<br>
> <a href=3D"https://github.com/Rakete1111/SpecifiersForStructuredBindin=
gs/blob/master/StaticThreadLocalAndConstexprForStructuredBindings.md" rel=
=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/Rakete1111/<wbr>Specif=
iersForStructuredBinding<wbr>s/blob/master/<wbr>StaticThreadLocalAndConstex=
prF<wbr>orStructuredBindings.md</a><br>
><br>
> It already got some feedback on the #future-standards channel on the C=
pp<br>
> slack.<br>
> Any comments welcome :)<br>
<br>
</span>One point of confusion that was mentioned in the<br>
discussion is whether the bindings are constexpr, or whether the whole<br>
object can be constexpr and the bindings not,<br>
what that means, and who cares, and why. Similarly, if indeed<br>
thread_local and static are results of std::get<> instead<br>
of member of an aggregate, can they be thread_local or static<br>
separately from the whole object, what that means, who<br>
cares, and why.<br>
<br>
Those are the questions the design-exploration paper was hoped to<br>
answer; i.e. is constexprness / thread_locality / staticness<br>
of the bindings always separate from the whole object, or somehow<br>
connected to it, is there a difference between aggregate<br>
members and std::get<> results, and why.<br>
<span class=3D""><br>
--<br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Goog=
le Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/=
a/isocpp.org/d/topic/std-proposals/sTi2KS1E8DU/unsubscribe" rel=3D"noreferr=
er" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/a/<wbr>isocpp.org/d/topic/s=
td-<wbr>proposals/sTi2KS1E8DU/<wbr>unsubscribe</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to <a href=
=3D"mailto:std-proposals%2Bunsubscribe@isocpp.org">std-proposals+unsubscrib=
e@<wbr>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>
</span>To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.g=
oogle.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAFk2RUY9qHpxUbUKZz%2Bw1H8Hkcc=
YxvJcsrJAhthhBP3T6twiBA%40mail.gmail.com" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_bla=
nk">https://groups.google.com/a/<wbr>isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-<wbr>proposals/=
CAFk2RUY9qHpxUbUKZz%<wbr>2Bw1H8HkccYxvJcsrJAhthhBP3T6tw<wbr>iBA%40mail.gmai=
l.com</a>.<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
<p></p>
-- <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 />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CALmDwq3_%3DY%3Dy8rVn%3DMV9CX4NciYZTO=
3jf3oWH-6mNUobh%2BfSOA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfoo=
ter">https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CALmDwq3_=
%3DY%3Dy8rVn%3DMV9CX4NciYZTO3jf3oWH-6mNUobh%2BfSOA%40mail.gmail.com</a>.<br=
/>
--001a114821a4c727400564b9a7cc--
.