Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #67173

Re: 2020 C++

Show all headers | View raw

On 7/25/2019 12:28 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 25/07/2019 11:22, Bo Persson wrote:
>> On 2019-07-25 at 10:48, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 25/07/2019 10:14, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>>> On 25.07.2019 10:05, David Brown wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Other than that, in C++20 I look forward to concepts and modules.
>>>>
>>>> No concepts yet, sorry.
>>>
>>> Did they not make it to C++20 in the end?  Why not?  They are a /really/
>>> nice idea, IMHO.
>>>
>>
>> They did make it, actually. It's contracts that has been delayed.
>>
> 
> Oh, good.  I had thought they were included, but assumed Alf had read
> more up-to-date details on C++20 than I had.
> 
> contracts will also be nice, but I don't think they have had much of a
> trial period as yet.  (Concepts have been in gcc since version 7.)
> 
>>
>> Kind of confusing that everything seems to start with "co".
>>
> 
> Actually, what is confusing is that we are running out of "metanames".
> Any word for describing groups or features seems to turn into a term in
> C++.  "C++20 introduces a range of new concepts...".  I expect that for
> C++23 there will be a new feature called "features" :-)
> 
> 
> 

To this point I think that, even if the feature itself is really good, 
the name "concept" is just a bad choice.
They are in fact requirements on template arguments, that Alex Stepanov 
named as concepts with what looks to me a sort of philosophical jump:
apparently he assumes that that a set of requirements on "something" is 
what defines such "something", and it is therefore identical to the 
concept of such "something".

Now, while this may be an excellent argument for discussion, IMHO it is 
just confusing when applied into a programming language (and possibly 
one of the reasons for the tormented gestation of the feature). 
Personally I would have preferred a name more directly coupled to 
"requirement" as in fact they are (we already have typedef, typereq 
might have been something clearer).

But Stroustrup takes Stepanov in very good consideration, so that's the 
name we get.

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

2020 C++ woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2019-07-24 19:10 -0700
  Re: 2020 C++ "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2019-07-25 04:45 +0200
    Re: 2020 C++ Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-07-25 10:25 +0200
    Re: 2020 C++ Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2019-07-25 08:40 +0000
    Re: 2020 C++ woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2019-07-25 07:49 -0700
      Re: 2020 C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-07-25 19:13 +0200
    Re: 2020 C++ JiiPee <no@notvalid.com> - 2019-08-07 13:10 +0100
  Re: 2020 C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-07-25 10:05 +0200
    Re: 2020 C++ "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2019-07-25 10:14 +0200
      Re: 2020 C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-07-25 10:48 +0200
        Re: 2020 C++ Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2019-07-25 11:22 +0200
          Re: 2020 C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-07-25 12:28 +0200
            Re: 2020 C++ lightness1024@gmail.com - 2019-07-25 03:57 -0700
            Re: 2020 C++ Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-07-25 14:16 +0000
              Re: 2020 C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-07-25 19:19 +0200
            Re: 2020 C++ Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-07-25 20:53 +0200
              Re: 2020 C++ Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-08-06 09:31 -0700
                Re: 2020 C++ Fran <flitterio@gmail.com> - 2019-08-06 16:05 -0400
                Re: 2020 C++ Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-08-09 10:44 -0700

csiph-web