Thread: Idea for new language construct

>But I guess that you are going to give me reasons that in your opinion make these ok
>changes and not at all related to what I have been saying.
Hmm, I have a better idea. I'll stop wasting my time and let you believe whatever you want. That's not the reaction anyone wants from me, but you've certainly earned it.

Oh, I do agree with the fact they aren't redundant. However, It doesn't confuse me either the fact they can be seen as... fluff, considering there are already means to achieve the same results for the most cases. It's all in the usage pattern of the coder... and not everyone uses Spirit.

I see these changes as positive. I still shudder somewhat towards auto. But given your confidence on the a few doubts thread, I definitely have to accept that as my ignorance on the matter.

In other words, I challenge you to show me one feature of the C++ core language that
1) is not required for C compatibility (such as the struct/class duality),
2) can be simulated with the remaining language features without
2a) significantly increasing source code size or
2b) making the feature inherently more unsafe to use.
The using statement (i.e. using namespace xxx) does not count - I actually think it's useless and tends to lead newbies to bad practices.

I can't. You present me too many restrictions. I could possibly include auto there. But again I'm fearful of doing it. I clearly cannot understand it fully yet. You don't let me put the using directive, so that's out too. The only other thing I can think of is auto_ptr because it has no multiple instances protection. But then and again auto_ptr is really not a language feature. Most of what is "wrong" with C++ is of what derives from its needed compatibility with C. But I agree that is a mute argument.

Rename the sentinel in my post to function_destructor and you have the feature.

I can start to see the non merits of this feature. But I'm glad it evolved past the simple "RAII already does that".

The boost libraries are not a language feature. They're libraries - implemented on top of existing language features. Your argument makes no sense.

It was an absurd reply to an absurd statement.

Originally Posted by Prelude

Hmm, I have a better idea. I'll stop wasting my time and let you believe whatever you want. That's not the reaction anyone wants from me, but you've certainly earned it.

Not really. I don't desire that kind of reaction from you. Especially from you, whose opinions I respect. However, I rather much prefer be taken seriously (like you obviously do too) and benefit from more than a play of words where I have to constantly be reafirming what is that I don't understand or agree, only to have as a reply more of the same.

When that happens, yes. I agree with you. It's best if we stop wasting time.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

and not everyone uses Spirit.

It was just an example. Expression templates are becoming more common all the time.

I can't. You present me too many restrictions.

Oh, but they're only two restrictions. The second one is merely a more exact formulation of "useful, but not redundant".

I could possibly include auto there.

No. As I have shown, it is not possible to fully emulate the functionality of auto with existing functionality.

It was an absurd reply to an absurd statement.

But the argument was exactly the same as in my challenge, just perhaps not as ... politically formulated

I think, though, in this case Prelude is too focused on her understanding of the language and could argue better if she tried to look at the situation from the point of view of someone with less experience in the dark areas of in-depth C++ knowledge.

>I think, though, in this case Prelude is too focused on her understanding of the language and
>could argue better if she tried to look at the situation from the point of view of someone
>with less experience in the dark areas of in-depth C++ knowledge.
That's probably true.