Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #84025
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" |
| Date | 2022-05-10 07:36 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <86ilqd4fpw.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <t48d7a$u9o$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t48epq$rh4$1@dont-email.me> <t4anus$rea$1@gioia.aioe.org> <86zgk34gg4.fsf@linuxsc.com> <t4nok1$qv0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote: > [some snipped context restored] >> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes: >> >>> The ranges library is just that: A library. It's not part of the >>> language syntax itself. It's not making C++ "more complicated" >>> because it's not changing the C++ language itself. It's simply an >>> ancillary auxiliary library. >>> >>> You treat these new standard libraries as if they made the language >>> more complicated and complex because from now forward you will have >>> to encounter C++ code that uses this library, meaning you will need >>> to know what this library is doing if you want to undrestand that >>> code. >>> >>> What you aren't considering is this: How is that different from >>> programs that use third-party libraries? [...] >> >> There are at least four differences between (in particular) ranges >> and a third-party library. >> >> One, there are some ranges-induced changes in the non-library >> portion of the C++ standard. Perhaps not very many, but some. > > Such as? > >> Two, other areas of the library portion of the C++ standard are >> affected by having ranges. Third-party libraries don't do that. > > So what? > >> Three, ranges are part of C++20, so using C++20 is a necessary >> pre-requisite for using ranges. Third-party libraries can be >> compatible with, and usable in, earlier versions of C++. > > There are many third-party libraries that require C++11 and won't > work in C++98 code. There are many that require C++17. How is this > different from requiring C++20? > > "Third party libraries can be compatible with" is a null sentence. > It isn't saying anything. Many third-party libraries could perhaps > be compatible with earlier versions of the language, but they > aren't. So what? > >> Four, by virtue of being part of C++20, if someone wants to >> use ranges then all the rest of C++20 comes along whether >> they want it or not. Third-party libraries can be (and >> perhaps even often are) independent, so they can be used >> (at least in many cases) without having to also take other >> language changes (whether in the library or in the language >> proper). > > Again: There are many third-party libraries that require C++11 > (and thus "the rest of C++11 comes along whether they want it or > not"). And so on. So what? How is that different? You asked a question. My response is an effort just to provide a simple, factual answer. Nothing more than that.
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
"Performance of C++20's Ranges" Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-26 01:13 -0300
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-26 09:15 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-26 09:27 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-04-26 16:29 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 18:45 -0700
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 11:42 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-26 11:11 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 13:31 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 06:46 -0700
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-27 08:20 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-27 08:40 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-27 15:12 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-04-27 16:09 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-27 16:21 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-04-29 16:15 -0700
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-30 16:00 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 19:03 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-27 11:12 -0400
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-28 06:45 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-27 06:30 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-04-28 23:57 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-29 06:07 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-04-29 16:28 -0700
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-05-02 05:01 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-05-10 07:36 -0700
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-26 11:28 -0400
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-04-26 18:13 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-26 16:24 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-04-26 12:48 -0400
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com> - 2022-04-26 20:20 -0300
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-27 08:30 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-27 08:50 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 05:12 -0700
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-27 15:18 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 18:56 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 08:40 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-04-28 13:54 +0300
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 13:11 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:25 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 17:30 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:45 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 17:52 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:57 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 18:01 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 16:06 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 18:09 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 16:14 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:11 -0700
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:20 -0700
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-29 09:31 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:15 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 13:07 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:17 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 17:31 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:50 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 17:55 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:59 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 18:02 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 16:13 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 18:20 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-29 09:27 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 20:48 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 07:34 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-04-30 17:31 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-30 20:30 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-05-01 15:20 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 18:18 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-05-01 16:25 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-05-01 23:14 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 18:52 -0700
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-04-28 18:21 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-29 09:29 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-04-28 18:19 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 21:01 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:07 -0700
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:22 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-28 10:57 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-28 15:27 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2022-04-28 09:26 -0700
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:07 +0200
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-27 15:54 +0000
Re: "Performance of C++20's Ranges" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 18:35 +0200
csiph-web