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 | 18 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 13 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 09:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vctq24$34e42$2@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #120238 |
Am 24.09.2024 um 09:23 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 16:24:58 -0400 > jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> boringly babbled: >> Anyway, it isn't like nobody uses java for high performance >> stuff. More a personal preference of the implementers. > > Anyone who wants to know how hopeless java can be for large applications > only needs to use Jira or Eclipse for 5 minutes. > I'm using IntellIJ Idea on a AMD 7950X and it's nearly as fast as Visual Studio.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 08:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vctscn$34oou$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120240 |
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 09:34:33 +0200 Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> boringly babbled: >Am 24.09.2024 um 09:23 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: >> On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 16:24:58 -0400 >> jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> boringly babbled: >>> Anyway, it isn't like nobody uses java for high performance >>> stuff. More a personal preference of the implementers. >> >> Anyone who wants to know how hopeless java can be for large applications >> only needs to use Jira or Eclipse for 5 minutes. >> > >I'm using IntellIJ Idea Never heard of it. >on a AMD 7950X and it's nearly as fast as >Visual Studio. According to wonkypedia its partly written in Kotlin. Whether that makes a difference or not ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 11:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vcu04i$358th$2@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #120242 |
Am 24.09.2024 um 10:14 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > Never heard of it. It's currently the most popular Java and Android-IDE. > According to wonkypedia its partly written in Kotlin. > Whether that makes a difference or not .... There's no difference in efficiency over Java.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 08:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vcud3p$375h6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120240 |
On 9/24/24 03:34, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 24.09.2024 um 09:23 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: >> On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 16:24:58 -0400 >> jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> boringly babbled: >>> Anyway, it isn't like nobody uses java for high performance >>> stuff. More a personal preference of the implementers. >> >> Anyone who wants to know how hopeless java can be for large applications >> only needs to use Jira or Eclipse for 5 minutes. >> > > I'm using IntellIJ Idea on a AMD 7950X and it's nearly as fast as > Visual Studio. > Is the community edition any good? Their paid version makes no sense for individual users. Joe Seigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 15:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vcud8b$377me$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #120254 |
Am 24.09.2024 um 14:59 schrieb jseigh: > Is the community edition any good? Their paid version makes > no sense for individual users. I write only small apps with IntelliJ and the community edition is sufficient for me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 13:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vcv7un$3b2eo$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120254 |
On 9/24/2024 5:59 AM, jseigh wrote: > On 9/24/24 03:34, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 24.09.2024 um 09:23 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: >>> On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 16:24:58 -0400 >>> jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> boringly babbled: >>>> Anyway, it isn't like nobody uses java for high performance >>>> stuff. More a personal preference of the implementers. >>> >>> Anyone who wants to know how hopeless java can be for large applications >>> only needs to use Jira or Eclipse for 5 minutes. >>> >> >> I'm using IntellIJ Idea on a AMD 7950X and it's nearly as fast as >> Visual Studio. >> > > Is the community edition any good? Their paid version makes > no sense for individual users. If you are referring to MSVC, well, yeah. It's not all that "bad". It's certainly better than MSVC 6.0 SP3... ;^) A screenshot of one of my MSVC projects: https://i.ibb.co/pfCnPtB/image.png :^) Actually, wrt MSVC they have an interesting package manager so to speak. It works. Also, I need to use MSVC because it hooks up to an little older Xbox of mine. So, I can program for Xbox and have MSVC upload the program to it. Also, it can remote debug it. Pretty cool. Here is the "package manager" fr MSVC: https://vcpkg.io I use it, and its okay so far.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jack <noreply@mandrill.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-23 00:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vcqb6u$2cp4l$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #120162 |
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 15:43:19 -0400 > jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> boringly babbled: >> Trying to come up to speed on C++ concepts. If they're are useful >> why wouldn't they define named requirements as a concept, e.g. > > Why don't you make a suggestion to people who creates guidelines? <http://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines> <https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/> The C++ Core Guidelines are an initiative led by Bjarne Stroustrup, the inventor of C++, and Herb Sutter, the convener and chair of the C++ ISO Working Group, to help programmers write 'Modern C++' by using best practices for the language standards C++11 and newer, and to help developers of compilers and static checking tools to create rules for catching bad programming practices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-23 08:48 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <86ba7267b5d8d070defcc27c341b473ac5bd6708.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #120196 |
On Mon, 2024-09-23 at 00:15 +0000, Jack wrote: > > > On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 15:43:19 -0400 > > jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> boringly babbled: > > > Trying to come up to speed on C++ concepts. If they're are useful > > > why wouldn't they define named requirements as a concept, e.g. > > > > > Why don't you make a suggestion to people who creates guidelines? > > <http://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines> > <https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/> > I would comment C++ Core Guidelines as 'less realistic' to the best. There are several working C++ guidelines, e.g. google's and https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/ClassGuidelines.txt/download > The C++ Core Guidelines are an initiative led by Bjarne Stroustrup, the > inventor of C++, and Herb Sutter, the convener and chair of the C++ ISO > Working Group, to help programmers > write 'Modern C++' by using best > practices for the language standards C++11 and newer, and to help > developers of compilers and static checking tools to create rules for > catching bad programming practices. > This part is very questionable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-22 11:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vcop1u$25k57$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120154 |
On 21/09/2024 21:43, jseigh wrote:
> Trying to come up to speed on C++ concepts. If they're are useful
> why wouldn't they define named requirements as a concept, e.g.
>
> template<typename T>
> concept BasicLockable = requires(T a)
> {
> { a.lock() } -> std::same_as<void>;
> { a.unlock() } -> std::same_as<void>;
> };
>
> template<BasicLockable T>
> ...
I think the answer is simply that there are so vastly many concepts that
people might be interested in that it is impractical to have more than a
small proportion of the most useful ones in the standard library:
<https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/concepts>
I would expect that we'll see steadily more added, tied to specific
templates. (I.e., when the the header <foo> with the template
std::foo<T> is added, we'll get the concept std::fooable<T> defined in
the same header <foo> as a requires clause so that error messages are a
bit neater.)
>
> Also if I define some concept for use in function templates,
> C++ doesn't like using primative types, just classes.
> Regular templates don't have the problem but they
> just seem to be glorified macros.
>
I haven't used concepts much as yet, so I'll leave that for someone
else. Hopefully you'll get a useful answer to a useful question, rather
than just yet another Bonita/Muttley pissing contest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-22 13:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vcovde$26mne$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #120169 |
Am 22.09.2024 um 11:46 schrieb David Brown: > I haven't used concepts much as yet, ... Writing bullet-proof concepts that make the usage of a generic class or function idiot-proof can be really hard sometimes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-22 11:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vcpogg$2abov$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120154 |
On 09/21/24 12:43 PM, jseigh wrote: > > Also if I define some concept for use in function templates, > C++ doesn't like using primative types, just classes. Er... Can you provide an example? -- Best regards, Andrey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-22 17:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vcq0h5$2bme0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120191 |
On 9/22/24 14:43, Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
> On 09/21/24 12:43 PM, jseigh wrote:
>>
>> Also if I define some concept for use in function templates,
>> C++ doesn't like using primative types, just classes.
>
> Er... Can you provide an example?
>
#include <concepts>
template<typename T>
concept GetRef = requires(T a)
{
{ getref(a)} -> std::same_as<void *>;
};
class test_t {};
static void * getref(int x) { return 0; }
static void * getref(test_t x) { return 0; }
template<GetRef X>
static void getref_concept(X z) {
getref(z);
};
template<typename T>
static void getref_template(T t)
{
getref(t);
}
int main()
{
test_t x = {};
getref_concept(x);
getref_concept(4);
// zz(4);
getref_template(x);
getref_template(4);
return 0;
}
$ g++ -C -std=c++20 -O3 -fconcepts-diagnostics-depth=4 ctest2.cpp
ctest2.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
ctest2.cpp:31:19: error: no matching function for call to
‘getref_concept(int)’
31 | getref_concept(4);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
ctest2.cpp:16:13: note: candidate: ‘template<class X> requires
GetRef<X> void getref_concept(X)’
16 | static void getref_concept(X z) {
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ctest2.cpp:16:13: note: template argument deduction/substitution failed:
ctest2.cpp:16:13: note: constraints not satisfied
ctest2.cpp: In substitution of ‘template<class X> requires GetRef<X>
void getref_concept(X) [with X = int]’:
ctest2.cpp:31:19: required from here
ctest2.cpp:4:9: required for the satisfaction of ‘GetRef<X>’ [with X =
int]
ctest2.cpp:4:18: in requirements with ‘T a’ [with T = int]
ctest2.cpp:6:13: note: the required expression ‘getref(a)’ is invalid,
because
6 | { getref(a)} -> std::same_as<void *>;
| ~~~~~~^~~
ctest2.cpp:6:13: error: ‘getref’ was not declared in this scope, and no
declarations were found by argument-dependent lookup at the point of
instantiation [-fpermissive]
ctest2.cpp:13:15: note: ‘void* getref(test_t)’ declared here, later in
the translation unit
13 | static void * getref(test_t x) { return 0; }
| ^~~~~~
No idea except maybe concepts don't like primitives as types.
Joe Seigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-22 14:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vcq3er$2c16a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120194 |
On 09/22/24 2:00 PM, jseigh wrote:
> On 9/22/24 14:43, Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
>> On 09/21/24 12:43 PM, jseigh wrote:
>>>
>>> Also if I define some concept for use in function templates,
>>> C++ doesn't like using primative types, just classes.
>>
>> Er... Can you provide an example?
>>
> #include <concepts>
>
> template<typename T>
> concept GetRef = requires(T a)
> {
> { getref(a)} -> std::same_as<void *>;
> };
>
> class test_t {};
>
> static void * getref(int x) { return 0; }
>
> static void * getref(test_t x) { return 0; }
>
> template<GetRef X>
> static void getref_concept(X z) {
> getref(z);
> };
>
> template<typename T>
> static void getref_template(T t)
> {
> getref(t);
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> test_t x = {};
>
> getref_concept(x);
> getref_concept(4);
>
> // zz(4);
>
> getref_template(x);
> getref_template(4);
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> $ g++ -C -std=c++20 -O3 -fconcepts-diagnostics-depth=4 ctest2.cpp
> ctest2.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
> ctest2.cpp:31:19: error: no matching function for call to
> ‘getref_concept(int)’
> 31 | getref_concept(4);
> | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
> ctest2.cpp:16:13: note: candidate: ‘template<class X> requires
> GetRef<X> void getref_concept(X)’
> 16 | static void getref_concept(X z) {
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ctest2.cpp:16:13: note: template argument deduction/substitution failed:
> ctest2.cpp:16:13: note: constraints not satisfied
> ctest2.cpp: In substitution of ‘template<class X> requires GetRef<X>
> void getref_concept(X) [with X = int]’:
> ctest2.cpp:31:19: required from here
> ctest2.cpp:4:9: required for the satisfaction of ‘GetRef<X>’ [with X =
> int]
> ctest2.cpp:4:18: in requirements with ‘T a’ [with T = int]
> ctest2.cpp:6:13: note: the required expression ‘getref(a)’ is invalid,
> because
> 6 | { getref(a)} -> std::same_as<void *>;
> | ~~~~~~^~~
> ctest2.cpp:6:13: error: ‘getref’ was not declared in this scope, and no
> declarations were found by argument-dependent lookup at the point of
> instantiation [-fpermissive]
> ctest2.cpp:13:15: note: ‘void* getref(test_t)’ declared here, later in
> the translation unit
> 13 | static void * getref(test_t x) { return 0; }
> | ^~~~~~
>
>
> No idea except maybe concepts don't like primitives as types.
>
But this is just a two-phase name lookup problem caused by your order of
declarations. It has nothing to do with concepts at all. You will get
essentially the same error in the following example:
template <typename T> void foo(T t) { bar(t); }
void bar(int) {}
int main()
{
foo(42);
}
The reason this error happens is that the second-phase of template
lookup is performed in ADL-associated namespaces only. And built-in
types (like `int`) do not have associated namespaces.
For this reason, for built-in types everything you refer to from
template code has to be declared _above_ that template code.
So, in your case you have to declare your `getref` functions _above_ the
concept declaration and the code will compile. At least the `int`
version of `getref` has to be declared above the concept
https://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/2d021dbf666f4f93
--
Best regards,
Andrey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-23 10:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vcru5n$2o8ip$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120195 |
On 9/22/24 17:50, Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
> On 09/22/24 2:00 PM, jseigh wrote:
>> On 9/22/24 14:43, Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
>>> On 09/21/24 12:43 PM, jseigh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Also if I define some concept for use in function templates,
>>>> C++ doesn't like using primative types, just classes.
>>>
>>> Er... Can you provide an example?
>>>
>> #include <concepts>
>>
>> template<typename T>
>> concept GetRef = requires(T a)
>> {
>> { getref(a)} -> std::same_as<void *>;
>> };
>>
>> class test_t {};
>>
>> static void * getref(int x) { return 0; }
>>
>> static void * getref(test_t x) { return 0; }
>>
>> template<GetRef X>
>> static void getref_concept(X z) {
>> getref(z);
>> };
>>
>> template<typename T>
>> static void getref_template(T t)
>> {
>> getref(t);
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> test_t x = {};
>>
>> getref_concept(x);
>> getref_concept(4);
>>
>> // zz(4);
>>
>> getref_template(x);
>> getref_template(4);
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> $ g++ -C -std=c++20 -O3 -fconcepts-diagnostics-depth=4 ctest2.cpp
>> ctest2.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
>> ctest2.cpp:31:19: error: no matching function for call to
>> ‘getref_concept(int)’
>> 31 | getref_concept(4);
>> | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
>> ctest2.cpp:16:13: note: candidate: ‘template<class X> requires
>> GetRef<X> void getref_concept(X)’
>> 16 | static void getref_concept(X z) {
>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> ctest2.cpp:16:13: note: template argument deduction/substitution
>> failed:
>> ctest2.cpp:16:13: note: constraints not satisfied
>> ctest2.cpp: In substitution of ‘template<class X> requires GetRef<X>
>> void getref_concept(X) [with X = int]’:
>> ctest2.cpp:31:19: required from here
>> ctest2.cpp:4:9: required for the satisfaction of ‘GetRef<X>’ [with X
>> = int]
>> ctest2.cpp:4:18: in requirements with ‘T a’ [with T = int]
>> ctest2.cpp:6:13: note: the required expression ‘getref(a)’ is invalid,
>> because
>> 6 | { getref(a)} -> std::same_as<void *>;
>> | ~~~~~~^~~
>> ctest2.cpp:6:13: error: ‘getref’ was not declared in this scope, and
>> no declarations were found by argument-dependent lookup at the point
>> of instantiation [-fpermissive]
>> ctest2.cpp:13:15: note: ‘void* getref(test_t)’ declared here, later in
>> the translation unit
>> 13 | static void * getref(test_t x) { return 0; }
>> | ^~~~~~
>>
>>
>> No idea except maybe concepts don't like primitives as types.
>>
>
> But this is just a two-phase name lookup problem caused by your order of
> declarations. It has nothing to do with concepts at all. You will get
> essentially the same error in the following example:
>
> template <typename T> void foo(T t) { bar(t); }
>
> void bar(int) {}
>
> int main()
> {
> foo(42);
> }
>
> The reason this error happens is that the second-phase of template
> lookup is performed in ADL-associated namespaces only. And built-in
> types (like `int`) do not have associated namespaces.
>
> For this reason, for built-in types everything you refer to from
> template code has to be declared _above_ that template code.
>
> So, in your case you have to declare your `getref` functions _above_ the
> concept declaration and the code will compile. At least the `int`
> version of `getref` has to be declared above the concept
>
> https://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/2d021dbf666f4f93
>
Ok, thanks. That helps a lot.
Joe Seigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-23 16:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vcrvgm$2oi8l$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #120195 |
Am 22.09.2024 um 23:50 schrieb Andrey Tarasevich:
> template <typename T> void foo(T t)
requires convertible_to<T, int>
> { bar(t); }
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-23 08:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vcs0f3$2olu5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120221 |
On 09/23/24 7:55 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 22.09.2024 um 23:50 schrieb Andrey Tarasevich:
>
>> template <typename T> void foo(T t)
>
> requires convertible_to<T, int>
>
> > { bar(t); }
>
Not sure why and what you are trying to say by that.
--
Best regards,
Andrey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 08:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vctluv$33t9l$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #120223 |
Am 23.09.2024 um 17:11 schrieb Andrey Tarasevich:
> On 09/23/24 7:55 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> Am 22.09.2024 um 23:50 schrieb Andrey Tarasevich:
>>
>>> template <typename T> void foo(T t)
>>
>> requires convertible_to<T, int>
>>
>> > { bar(t); }
>>
>
> Not sure why and what you are trying to say by that.
The requires-clause makes the template bullet-proof.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-25 15:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vd1o03$3pvp4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #120154 |
On 9/21/24 15:43, jseigh wrote:
> Trying to come up to speed on C++ concepts. If they're are useful
> why wouldn't they define named requirements as a concept, e.g.
>
> template<typename T>
> concept BasicLockable = requires(T a)
> {
> { a.lock() } -> std::same_as<void>;
> { a.unlock() } -> std::same_as<void>;
> };
>
> template<BasicLockable T>
> ...
Ok, all good I think.
The question of why wouldn't they define named requirements that
way was about whether there was some technical reason for not
doing that.
On a different note, now that figured out how to abuse regular
templates to insert arbitrary blocks of code where I want it
I can try porting some performance testing code from C to C++,
assuming I can reliably get it inlined. When you are testing
code that takes 0.8 nsecs inlined and 2.4 nsecs when called,
it does matter. Otherwise when you are comparing different
implementations the call overhead is going to dominate and
they are going to look the same performance wise.
Joe Seigh
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web