Sunday, March 12, 2023

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 9 updates in 2 topics

"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Mar 12 04:18PM -0700

On Sunday, 12 March 2023 at 23:18:08 UTC+2, Keith Thompson wrote:
> you think can be removed. I agree that there are some, but I'm
> skeptical that it would be practical to remove as many has half.
 
> Any comment on that?
 
I do not think that majority of cases are implicit. Or may be there are
but the implicit cases are very rarely met. Yes, I think that about half
can be removed. May be that half is too lot of work then even quarter
would help in major way. For example that:
 
int& foo(int x) {return x;}
 
There must be is good reason why that is not an error (and even
not undefined behavior).
Sam <sam@email-scan.com>: Mar 12 05:24PM -0400

Mr Flibble writes:
 
 
>> At work it's easy to tell the wandering souls that use VS, or something
>> else. The VS ones always DM me screenshots of their code, instead of text.
 
> What point are you trying to make, mate?
 
You also don't have a second thought of taking a screenshot of a window with
code, cropping it in an image editor, and then sending the cropped picture
to someone else, with a programming-related question about the snapped code
snippet?
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: Mar 12 02:28PM -0700

On 3/12/2023 1:38 PM, Bo Persson wrote:
>> one for the Mac:
 
>> https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/vs/mac/
 
> Unfortunately that is C# for the Mac, but not C++.
 
Ahhh, shit! I thought they had a full blown MSVC for the Mac. Grrrr!
MarioCPPP <NoliMihiFrangereMentulam@libero.it>: Mar 12 10:30PM +0100

On 12/03/23 21:16, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
 
> https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/vs/mac/
 
> Fwiw:
> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/linux/download-install-and-setup-the-linux-development-workload?view=msvc-170
 
I'll have a look, Tnx
Ciao
 
 
 
--
1) Resistere, resistere, resistere.
2) Se tutti pagano le tasse, le tasse le pagano tutti
MarioCPPP
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Mar 12 10:32PM +0100

Am 12.03.2023 um 21:06 schrieb Mr Flibble:
 
> "requires" is C++20, "if constexpr" is C++17 in which statements can be
> discarded in templates.
 
if constexpr() alone requries a compileable statement and you supply
a statement that is not compileable. requires() { {}; }... compiles
to false if the statement isn't compileable.
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>: Mar 12 05:31PM -0400

On 3/12/23 08:12, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> back to VS.
 
> What the fuck is "well enough" supposed to mean? A C++20 compiler that
> can't even compile well formed C++17 code is *not* fit for purpose.
 
"not fit for purpose" depends upon your purpose. His purpose is to get
his code to compile. There might be well-formed C++17 code that it can't
compile, but it does compile his code. That's what "well enough" means
in this context.
Mr Flibble <flibble2@reddwarf.jmc.corp>: Mar 12 10:19PM

On 12/03/2023 21:32, Bonita Montero wrote:
 
> if constexpr() alone requries a compileable statement and you supply
> a statement that is not compileable. requires() { {}; }... compiles
> to false if the statement isn't compileable.
 
You have been focusing on C++20 and concepts so much that you have
forgotten C++17. In C++17 (and C++20) for templates "if constexpr"
statements dependent on the template parameter can be discarded and
discarded statements don't have to be compilable for a particular
template argument; discarded statements are only fully checked outside
of templates.
 
/Flibble
Mr Flibble <flibble2@reddwarf.jmc.corp>: Mar 12 10:21PM

On 12/03/2023 21:31, James Kuyper wrote:
> his code to compile. There might be well-formed C++17 code that it can't
> compile, but it does compile his code. That's what "well enough" means
> in this context.
 
The purpose of a C++ compiler is to compile C++. VS2022 is currently
failing to compile C++ ergo it is not fit for purpose.
 
/Flibble
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>: Mar 12 06:32PM -0400

On 3/12/23 18:21, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 12/03/2023 21:31, James Kuyper wrote:
...
>> in this context.
 
> The purpose of a C++ compiler is to compile C++. VS2022 is currently
> failing to compile C++ ergo it is not fit for purpose.
 
There is no unique purpose for a C++ compiler - each person using a
compiler can, potentially, have a different purpose for using it.. I
would say that most people only want it to compile the code that they
actually need to compile, and are not particularly annoyed if it fails
to compile code that they would never write. Can you suggest any reason
why they should be?
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)