C++Talk.NET C++ language newsgroups   Archives   FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  Questions about n1717 - Explicit class and default definitio          C++Talk.NET Forum Index -> C++ language, library and standards View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Gennaro Prota Guest Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 7:13 am    Post subject: Questions about n1717 - Explicit class and default definitio Hi, I was just wondering how the proposal in n1717 has been received by the committee and if it is making his way into C++0x. I had missed this paper, and have longly desired myself a syntax to explicitly specify that a compiler-generated function was wanted; my idea was to use the auto keyword for that, though, as in X & operator=( const X & ) = auto; I find this more natural. Also, an issue which I can't see mentioned in the paper is: suppose for instance that the compiler-declared copy constructor of a class X has (would have) the form X(const X& ) but I write X( X & ) = auto // or = default or { default } or { auto }... or viceversa. Do we want this to be legal? -- Gennaro Prota. C++ developer. For hire. (to mail me, remove any 'u' from the address) --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Beman Dawes Guest Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:10 am    Post subject: Re: Questions about n1717 - Explicit class and default defin Hi Gennaro, Quote: I was just wondering how the proposal in n1717 has been received by the committee and if it is making his way into C++0x. Alisdair Meredith is producing a revision of "State of C++ Evolution" after each meeting. With so many proposals in the hopper, this document is the most authoritative view on status. Take a look at http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2122.htm It looks like n1717 is dead for this revision; time seems to have run on on that one. The committee has decided to aim for C++09 as the target for C++0x to be finished, and that means all feature changes must be complete in the Working Paper by the end of the October, 2007, meeting. Than in turn means any proposal that isn't pretty far along in the process is very unlikely to be considered for this revision of the standard. Changing the subject, note that n2105 is very much alive. See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2105.html. A post of yours on this newsgroup was one of the motivations for that paper. Thanks, --Beman --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Beman Dawes Guest Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:10 am    Post subject: Re: Questions about n1717 - Explicit class and default defin Hi Gennaro, Quote: I was just wondering how the proposal in n1717 has been received by the committee and if it is making his way into C++0x. Alisdair Meredith is producing a revision of "State of C++ Evolution" after each meeting. With so many proposals in the hopper, this document is the most authoritative view on status. Take a look at http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2122.htm It looks like n1717 is dead for this revision; time seems to have run on on that one. The committee has decided to aim for C++09 as the target for C++0x to be finished, and that means all feature changes must be complete in the Working Paper by the end of the October, 2007, meeting. Than in turn means any proposal that isn't pretty far along in the process is very unlikely to be considered for this revision of the standard. Changing the subject, note that n2105 is very much alive. See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2105.html. A post of yours on this newsgroup was one of the motivations for that paper. Thanks, --Beman --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Gennaro Prota Guest Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Questions about n1717 - Explicit class and default defin On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 06:12:07 GMT, Beman Dawes wrote: Quote: Alisdair Meredith is producing a revision of "State of C++ Evolution" after each meeting. With so many proposals in the hopper, this document is the most authoritative view on status. Take a look at http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2122.htm Thanks, very much needed :-) Quote: It looks like n1717 is dead for this revision :-( Quote: [...] Changing the subject, note that n2105 is very much alive. See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2105.html. A post of yours on this newsgroup was one of the motivations for that paper. Thanks for granting the request, though some of my points were ignored <http://google.com/group/comp.std.c++/msg/8462954c8507bded> And for the acknowledgement, though I don't think the "contribution" was relevant enough to deserve it :-) -- Gennaro Prota. C++ developer. For hire. (to mail me, remove any 'u' from the address) --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Yechezkel Mett Guest Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:31 pm    Post subject: N2105 - existing keywords Beman Dawes wrote: Quote: Changing the subject, note that n2105 is very much alive. See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2105.html. I note that one of the objections is that three of the proposed keywords don't use underscores to separate words. I suspect the reason is that they are keywords and not identifiers - the only current keywords with underscores are the casts (which were deliberately made somewhat unwieldy) and wchar_t (where it isn't used as a word separator). Compare that to sizeof, typedef, typeid, typename and perhaps namespace where no separator is used. The other cases brought for comparison are not actually keywords but identifiers. I think people consider keywords in a different class to identifiers, and therefore no one felt an inconsistency. Of course, whether to perpetuate that distinction is a different question. Yechezkel Mett --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         C++Talk.NET Forum Index -> C++ language, library and standards All times are GMT Page 1 of 1   Jump to: Select a forum C/C++----------------C LanguageC Language (Moderated)C++ Language (Moderated)C++ language (comp.lang.c++)C++ language, library and standards Non-English C/C++ Newsgroups----------------C++ (German)C++ (French)  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.