U++ forum: Welcome to the forum

Status & Roadmap

Authors & License

Funding Ultimate++

Search on this site

Search in forums

Home » Community » Coffee corner » C++11

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Return to the default flat view

Create a new topic

Submit Reply

Re: C++11 [message #38131 is a reply to message #38123]

Sun, 02 December 2012 15:08

Lance is currently offline

Lance
Messages: 527
Registered: March 2007

Contributor

I think eventually U++ should get rid of pick_ and make use of rvalue reference instead. rvalue reference solves the same problem pick_ saught to solve and is standard compliant, and behaves more consistent across compilers: I believe pick_ is #define'd to different things on MSVC from on g++, and to avoid conflicts, U++ has to introduce a dummy parameter for deep copy semantics.

Last time when I mentioned this, Mirek said something like pick_ had more degree of automation; for the same purpose rvalue reference might involve more coding. But the benefit of switching might overwhelm the cost. C++ programmers turning to U++ will appreciate the effort saved for learning pick_ and will find the code easier to understand. U++ programmers don't have to speak a special dialect when there is no compelling reason for that.

The only problem IMHO is the resources needed to implement the switch. It's bound to take a lot of time and break a lot of user codes, unless somebody can write a parser to automate the process.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

[Message index]

		C++11 By: Mindtraveller on Wed, 12 October 2011 11:20
		Re: C++11 By: mirek on Fri, 14 October 2011 12:18
		Re: C++11 By: lectus on Sat, 03 December 2011 12:03
		Re: C++11 By: nlneilson on Sun, 02 December 2012 08:35
		Re: C++11 By: Lance on Sun, 02 December 2012 15:08
		Re: C++11 By: dolik.rce on Sun, 02 December 2012 16:04
		Re: C++11 By: Lance on Sun, 02 December 2012 18:05
		Re: C++11 By: Lance on Sun, 02 December 2012 18:47
		Re: C++11 By: Lance on Sun, 02 December 2012 19:30
		Re: C++11 By: dolik.rce on Sun, 02 December 2012 20:12
		Re: C++11 By: Lance on Sun, 02 December 2012 21:00
		Re: C++11 By: mirek on Mon, 03 December 2012 11:04
		Re: C++11 By: mirek on Mon, 03 December 2012 11:10
		Re: C++11 By: Lance on Tue, 04 December 2012 00:55
		Re: C++11 By: mirek on Tue, 04 December 2012 08:08
		Re: C++11 By: Lance on Tue, 19 March 2013 03:24
		Re: C++11 By: dolik.rce on Sun, 24 June 2012 09:51
		Re: C++11 By: mirek on Sun, 24 June 2012 12:50
		Re: C++11 By: unodgs on Sun, 24 June 2012 13:02
		Re: C++11 By: mirek on Sun, 24 June 2012 13:13
		Re: C++11 By: unodgs on Sun, 24 June 2012 13:21
		Re: C++11 By: dolik.rce on Sun, 24 June 2012 16:24
		Re: C++11 By: lectus on Wed, 27 June 2012 01:29
		Re: C++11 By: mirek on Thu, 28 June 2012 08:16
		Re: C++11 By: Lance on Sun, 02 December 2012 06:18

Previous Topic:	live session Prague 8.3.2013
Next Topic:	Have Visual Studio? Looking for prebuilt SDL 2.0

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

PDF

]

Current Time: Thu May 16 07:35:06 CEST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02735 seconds