Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #120154 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-09-21 15:43 -0400 |
| Last post | 2024-09-25 15:23 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 258 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
C++ named requirements as concepts jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-21 15:43 -0400
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-22 08:06 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 10:45 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-22 08:59 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 11:03 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-22 09:08 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 11:51 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-22 15:15 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 17:33 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-23 07:39 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 10:54 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-23 09:32 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 11:45 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-23 13:56 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 16:00 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-23 14:03 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-23 15:48 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 17:52 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-23 15:47 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 17:53 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-24 07:20 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 09:33 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-24 08:11 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 11:17 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 11:46 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-24 10:52 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 12:54 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-24 10:59 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 13:05 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-24 11:07 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 13:21 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-24 13:51 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 15:56 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-24 15:43 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 17:48 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 07:19 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 11:30 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 09:49 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 08:24 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 11:32 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 11:15 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 13:30 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 12:43 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 14:50 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 14:00 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 12:47 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 15:00 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 13:22 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 17:12 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 15:35 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 19:19 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-26 07:36 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 11:36 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-25 13:11 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-25 13:31 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-09-25 13:52 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-25 14:06 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 14:22 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 11:12 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-25 14:30 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 14:34 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 14:38 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 15:01 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 12:40 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 13:23 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 13:33 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-25 14:38 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 13:45 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 14:36 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 14:39 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 15:04 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-25 17:14 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 16:23 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 17:18 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 17:26 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 17:14 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-09-25 21:24 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 20:37 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 13:49 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 14:03 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 14:38 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-25 15:17 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-09-25 15:49 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 14:52 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 12:55 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 15:08 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 13:24 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 15:28 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 13:36 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 15:44 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 14:11 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 16:14 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 15:32 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 17:33 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 15:49 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 17:53 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-26 07:34 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 10:20 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 16:46 +0800
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 16:51 +0800
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 11:20 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 19:17 +0800
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 19:27 +0800
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 13:32 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-26 12:23 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 11:25 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 19:20 +0800
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-26 10:03 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 13:33 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-26 14:09 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 16:14 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-27 02:27 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-27 11:11 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-27 16:14 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-27 15:25 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-27 18:24 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-28 09:12 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-28 17:33 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-28 15:47 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 13:41 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-29 13:48 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 14:49 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-29 11:23 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.com - 2024-09-30 07:26 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-09-30 07:40 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-30 12:24 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-09-30 15:47 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-30 17:58 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-30 10:57 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-30 05:29 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-30 14:34 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-30 15:21 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-09-30 16:00 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-09-30 16:09 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 19:43 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-01 07:31 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-01 11:01 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-10-01 10:06 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-01 09:58 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-10-01 12:58 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-01 16:14 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-10-01 19:43 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-02 07:11 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-10-02 09:34 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-01 09:57 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-30 10:18 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-01 07:32 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-30 19:51 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-01 07:36 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-10-01 10:00 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-01 10:42 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-01 12:53 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-01 10:02 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-01 13:11 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-01 16:13 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-01 21:50 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-01 20:06 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts User <noreply@user.com> - 2024-10-02 05:47 +0100
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-04 06:52 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-04 13:57 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-02 13:02 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-04 06:57 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-06 14:19 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-06 14:22 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-07 09:11 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-07 22:53 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-10-08 18:11 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-08 22:48 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-10-09 00:12 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-09 01:06 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-10-09 08:25 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-10-09 08:28 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-10-09 10:26 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-09 09:31 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-09 13:58 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-10-09 14:39 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-09 19:59 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-10-09 22:37 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-10 11:47 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-11 04:58 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-11 16:03 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-12 07:41 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-12 08:18 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-11 03:57 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-10-07 19:19 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-02 07:13 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-01 13:06 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-01 10:01 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-01 13:08 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-01 16:15 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-10-01 19:44 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org - 2024-10-01 09:56 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-10-01 13:01 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-29 15:00 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 14:37 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 15:42 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-29 15:47 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-28 04:28 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-28 13:55 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 15:33 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-25 17:16 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-09-25 16:22 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-25 13:34 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 17:27 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-09-25 22:37 +0300
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-26 07:38 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 10:21 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-26 10:03 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 13:29 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-26 14:09 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-26 16:17 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 15:07 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-26 18:22 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 14:58 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 15:19 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 13:55 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-24 10:50 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 12:53 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-22 07:58 -0400
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 14:10 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-23 11:08 -0400
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 17:21 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-22 15:21 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 17:34 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-23 07:40 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 10:55 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-23 09:33 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 11:46 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-23 13:59 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 16:02 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-23 14:05 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 16:10 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 12:55 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-23 16:24 -0400
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 14:43 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-23 18:59 -0400
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 16:06 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 16:10 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-24 09:15 -0400
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-24 07:23 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 09:34 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-09-24 08:14 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 11:18 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-24 08:59 -0400
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 15:02 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 13:37 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Jack <noreply@mandrill.com> - 2024-09-23 00:15 +0000
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 08:48 +0800
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-22 11:46 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 13:35 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-22 11:43 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-22 17:00 -0400
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-22 14:50 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-23 10:32 -0400
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 16:55 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2024-09-23 08:11 -0700
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 08:24 +0200
Re: C++ named requirements as concepts jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-25 15:23 -0400
Page 2 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 13 Next page →
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 07:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vctp7o$34b4i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120225 |
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 15:47:38 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) boringly babbled:
>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes:
>
>>>Rust will be popular in 10 - 20 years.
>>
>>Or maybe it'll fail altogether like D. However it seems a reasonable halfway
>>house between C and C++ with built in memory safety and much less of the
>>syntatic and semantic bollocks that comes with C++.
>
>So far. But then C++ didn't have all the syntactic and semantic bollocks
>when it was first developed; just C with classes for data encapsulation.
True. One can hope that whatever team develops Rust knows when to leave well
alone and only add important features going forward, not whatever half-arsed
idea one of them farts out on the toilet that morning which seems to be how C++
is "designed" these days. Would also help if they avoided idiotic syntatic
hacks such as off the top of my head:
- Unused int arg to denote postfix
- "= 0" for pure virtuals
- {} for constructors inconsistent behviour depending on whether one of the
constructors takes an initaliser list or not.
-
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 09:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vctq0g$34e42$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #120237 |
Am 24.09.2024 um 09:20 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > True. One can hope that whatever team develops Rust knows when to leave well > alone and only add important features going forward, not whatever half-arsed > idea one of them farts out on the toilet that morning which seems to be how C++ > is "designed" these days. Would also help if they avoided idiotic syntatic > hacks such as off the top of my head: This is said by someone who thinks concepts, which are a rather simple feature, are too complex.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 08:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vcts7c$34o64$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120239 |
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 09:33:41 +0200 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> boringly babbled: >Am 24.09.2024 um 09:20 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > >> True. One can hope that whatever team develops Rust knows when to leave well >> alone and only add important features going forward, not whatever half-arsed >> idea one of them farts out on the toilet that morning which seems to be how >C++ >> is "designed" these days. Would also help if they avoided idiotic syntatic >> hacks such as off the top of my head: > >This is said by someone who thinks concepts, which are a rather simple >feature, are too complex. So you don't believe those are hacks? Fair enough. And there's a difference between too complex and pointless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 11:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vcu02b$358th$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #120241 |
Am 24.09.2024 um 10:11 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > So you don't believe those are hacks? Fair enough. And there's a difference > between too complex and pointless. Concepts aren't a hack and make APIs for those who use it simpler because they don't have to deal with the implementation if there's an error with the API-usage. F.e. if an API requires that you give a random-access iterator and you give a forward-iterator you get a simple error message instead Swahili from inside a templated functionn. Concepts are for sure the simplest feature of C++20.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 11:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vcu1pd$35e78$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #120243 |
Am 24.09.2024 um 11:17 schrieb Bonita Montero: > Concepts aren't a hack and make APIs for those who use it simpler > because they don't have to deal with the implementation if there's > an error with the API-usage. F.e. if an API requires that you give > a random-access iterator and you give a forward-iterator you get > a simple error message instead Swahili from inside a templated > functionn. And: I could handle C++ without concepts respectivly I could handle the errors from inside a template function. Concepts are there to APIs simpler to use for people like _you_. Unfortunately the standard libary isn't concepted currently, f.e. if you modify an element inside the function-object given to std::sort you won't get an error. A concept could enforce that you take const references and g++ and clang++ would show you that this constraint is violated. I'm using concepts consequently except with generic lambdas inside a function because you'd always have to understand the lambda itsellf.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 10:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vcu5m1$364fi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120245 |
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 11:46:26 +0200 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> boringly babbled: >Unfortunately the standard libary isn't concepted currently, f.e. if >you modify an element inside the function-object given to std::sort >you won't get an error. A concept could enforce that you take const Bummer. So don't modify them inside the function object. If thats the best use case you can come up with to justify them then I won't lose any sleep over not bothering to learn them, particularly since my compiler is only partially 2020 compliant anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 12:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vcu5p4$3647b$2@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #120247 |
Am 24.09.2024 um 12:52 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 11:46:26 +0200 > Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> boringly babbled: >> Unfortunately the standard libary isn't concepted currently, f.e. if >> you modify an element inside the function-object given to std::sort >> you won't get an error. A concept could enforce that you take const > > Bummer. So don't modify them inside the function object. Yes, but this can be safely enforced. F.e. if you wrote = instead of == inside such a lambda you get an error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 10:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vcu636$366dr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120249 |
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 12:54:34 +0200 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> boringly babbled: >Am 24.09.2024 um 12:52 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: >> On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 11:46:26 +0200 >> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> boringly babbled: >>> Unfortunately the standard libary isn't concepted currently, f.e. if >>> you modify an element inside the function-object given to std::sort >>> you won't get an error. A concept could enforce that you take const >> >> Bummer. So don't modify them inside the function object. > >Yes, but this can be safely enforced. >F.e. if you wrote = instead of == inside such a lambda you get an error. Arguments to that type of function object should be const anyway so if a dev doesn't bother with that he's unlikely to bother writing concept code to do the same thing. Seems like a re-invention of the wheel in that particular example.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 13:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vcu6d1$3680k$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #120250 |
Am 24.09.2024 um 12:59 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > Arguments to that type of function object should be const anyway ... That's always true, mostly false. > Seems like a re-invention of the wheel in that particular example. No, it gives more meaningful errors. That's not for me, I understand the errors from inside a <algorithm>-function or whatever. That's for less C++-skilled people like you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 11:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vcu6i9$368tq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120251 |
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 13:05:10 +0200 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> boringly babbled: >Am 24.09.2024 um 12:59 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > >> Arguments to that type of function object should be const anyway ... > >That's always true, mostly false. What? >> Seems like a re-invention of the wheel in that particular example. > >No, it gives more meaningful errors. That's not for me, I understand >the errors from inside a <algorithm>-function or whatever. That's for >less C++-skilled people like you. I think you have an overrated sense of your own abilities. You may have better knowledge of the language than most but your ability to write clear and simple code is badly lacking as you frequently demonstrate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 13:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vcu7br$36c1f$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #120252 |
Am 24.09.2024 um 13:07 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 13:05:10 +0200 > Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> boringly babbled: >> Am 24.09.2024 um 12:59 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: >> >>> Arguments to that type of function object should be const anyway ... >> >> That's always true, mostly false. > > What? In most cases references as function-parameters are non-const if you include r-value-references (which can be const altough it doesn't make sense). > I think you have an overrated sense of your own abilities. No, I've worked a long time with C++ before concepts and I learned to live with the Swahili errors from the compiler. > You may have better knowledge of the language than most but your > ability to write clear and simple code is badly lacking as you > frequently demonstrate. Clear and simple in a sense that it's understandable for someone having only 10 hours experience with C++ is impossible. It's a language for people which are constantly working with.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 13:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vcug4t$37leo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120253 |
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 13:21:37 +0200 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> boringly babbled: >Am 24.09.2024 um 13:07 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: >> On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 13:05:10 +0200 >> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> boringly babbled: >>> Am 24.09.2024 um 12:59 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: >>> >>>> Arguments to that type of function object should be const anyway ... >>> >>> That's always true, mostly false. >> >> What? > >In most cases references as function-parameters are non-const if >you include r-value-references (which can be const altough it doesn't >make sense). No, the point was something can't be always true and mostly false at the same time. > >> I think you have an overrated sense of your own abilities. > >No, I've worked a long time with C++ before concepts and I learned >to live with the Swahili errors from the compiler. Those errors are a function of the compiler, not the language. As I said in a previous post, Clang produces far clearer error messages than the borderline useless rubbish that gcc spits out. >> You may have better knowledge of the language than most but your >> ability to write clear and simple code is badly lacking as you >> frequently demonstrate. > >Clear and simple in a sense that it's understandable for someone >having only 10 hours experience with C++ is impossible. It's a >language for people which are constantly working with. C++ can be written clearly as well as undertaking complex tasks. Sadly you lack the ability to do it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 15:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vcuge9$37ln0$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #120257 |
Am 24.09.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > Those errors are a function of the compiler, not the language. ... They arise from the standard. > As I said in a previous post, Clang produces far clearer error > messages than the borderline useless rubbish that gcc spits out. Absolutely not when it comes to unsupported properties of a caller's type. But the error-codes from concept-violations with clang++ are very good. As concepts are part of the overload resolution MSVC just says overload not found. That's better than the Swahili messages from inside a templated function, but by far not as good as g++'s and clang++'s cooncept error meesages. > C++ can be written clearly as well as undertaking complex tasks. > Sadly you lack the ability to do it. My code is clear for people who know the language up to the most recent standard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 15:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vcummg$38kuj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120258 |
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 15:56:31 +0200 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> boringly babbled: >Am 24.09.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > >> Those errors are a function of the compiler, not the language. ... > >They arise from the standard. What are you talking about? The compiler writers can choose to output errors in any way and format they like.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 17:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vcumva$38ltq$2@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #120259 |
Am 24.09.2024 um 17:43 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 15:56:31 +0200 > Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> boringly babbled: >> Am 24.09.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: >> >>> Those errors are a function of the compiler, not the language. ... >> >> They arise from the standard. > > What are you talking about? The compiler writers can choose to output errors > in any way and format they like. > > Warnings are compiler-specific, errors directly arise from standard violations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-25 07:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vd0dh4$3jo7p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120260 |
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 17:48:01 +0200 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> boringly babbled: >Am 24.09.2024 um 17:43 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: >> On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 15:56:31 +0200 >> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> boringly babbled: >>> Am 24.09.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: >>> >>>> Those errors are a function of the compiler, not the language. ... >>> >>> They arise from the standard. >> >> What are you talking about? The compiler writers can choose to output errors >> in any way and format they like. >> >> > >Warnings are compiler-specific, errors directly arise from standard >violations. Well in that case all errors should be output all the time, but gcc and clang have -W*, -pedantic so where does that leave your argument? Also there is no reason to print the entire error stack dump, just the first level error (the one they've actually made in their code) will do for most people. If they want the entire stack that could come with -Wall or whatever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-25 11:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vd0l6q$3kp10$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #120263 |
Am 25.09.2024 um 09:19 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 17:48:01 +0200 > Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> boringly babbled: >> Am 24.09.2024 um 17:43 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: >>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 15:56:31 +0200 >>> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> boringly babbled: >>>> Am 24.09.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: >>>> >>>>> Those errors are a function of the compiler, not the language. ... >>>> >>>> They arise from the standard. >>> >>> What are you talking about? The compiler writers can choose to output errors >>> in any way and format they like. >>> >>> >> >> Warnings are compiler-specific, errors directly arise from standard >> violations. > > Well in that case all errors should be output all the time, but gcc and > clang have -W*, -pedantic so where does that leave your argument? Also there > is no reason to print the entire error stack dump, just the first level error > (the one they've actually made in their code) will do for most people. If they > want the entire stack that could come with -Wall or whatever. 98% of all errors are still common among the compilers, even with that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-25 09:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vd0fau$3jvte$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120259 |
On 24/09/2024 17:43, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 15:56:31 +0200 > Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> boringly babbled: >> Am 24.09.2024 um 15:51 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: >> >>> Those errors are a function of the compiler, not the language. ... >> >> They arise from the standard. > > What are you talking about? The compiler writers can choose to output errors > in any way and format they like. > There is a fundamental difference in the errors when using concepts and when not using concepts. Suppose you have a template class A<T> and your template is only suitable if you can call "foo" on the type. Then later on you have "A<T> a;", and further down the line you call "foo(a);". With normal templates, you get an error when you try to call "foo(a)". This error is because the compiler can't find a suitable "foo" to call, no matter what implicit conversions it tries and what namespaces it looks up. The error message is likely to be complex because the compiler doesn't know where you made the mistake, and tries to list possibilities. No matter where it picks the balance, it will be wrong for some cases - either it gives too much information, hiding the help in noise, or it gives too little information and missing the useful details. Using concepts, however, means the error is found on the first attempt to use the type "A<T>" - the compiler can give far clearer information. It can say "On line x, you tried to make A<T>, but type T does not fulfil the requirement you gave on line y when you defined class A". This is massively more direct, and leads you far fast to the source of the problem. Compilers can do better or worse at their error messages (gcc's messages often used to be incomprehensible when clang was the upstart with better messages - since then, gcc's messages have got hugely better. Competition is a great thing). And you sometimes want more information, sometimes less. But concepts give the programmer and the compiler a far better starting point. They also allow neater and clearer code with constrained auto declarations, letting you specify something between "this /exact/ type" and "whatever seems to fit".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-25 08:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vd0hbi$3k8si$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120264 |
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:49:49 +0200 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> boringly babbled: >looks up. The error message is likely to be complex because the >compiler doesn't know where you made the mistake, and tries to list It knows what line invoked the error so all it needs to do is print that. >Using concepts, however, means the error is found on the first attempt >to use the type "A<T>" - the compiler can give far clearer information. >It can say "On line x, you tried to make A<T>, but type T does not >fulfil the requirement you gave on line y when you defined class A". Tbh if you want to massage templating that much then don't use it in the first place, just hard code the functions. >Competition is a great thing). And you sometimes want more information, >sometimes less. But concepts give the programmer and the compiler a far >better starting point. This is where compiler command line switches should come into play. >They also allow neater and clearer code with constrained auto >declarations, letting you specify something between "this /exact/ type" >and "whatever seems to fit". Don't use auto in those scenarios then. Its always nicer when people put the specific type in the code anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-25 11:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vd0lc2$3kp10$2@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #120265 |
Am 25.09.2024 um 10:24 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > Tbh if you want to massage templating that much then don't use it in the > first place, just hard code the functions. To avoid concepts ? LOL. > This is where compiler command line switches should come into play. Without concepts the compiler has no other choice than giving Swahili error messages from inside the implementation. > Don't use auto in those scenarios then. Its always nicer when people put > the specific type in the code anyway. auto-parameters *with* concepts become much cleaner than without. There's no choice to hardcode sth. then because you want to be generic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web