U++ forum: Welcome to the forum

Status & Roadmap

Authors & License

Funding Ultimate++

Search on this site

Search in forums

Home » Developing U++ » U++ Developers corner » Should the pick semantics be changed?

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: Should the pick semantics be changed? [message #42293 is a reply to message #42291]

Wed, 05 March 2014 10:27

piotr5 is currently offline

piotr5
Messages: 107
Registered: November 2005

Experienced Member

mirek wrote on Wed, 05 March 2014 08:54

But I still believe it is a good idea to keep "pick" behaviour as default (regardless it is implemented as && or ugly pick_ macro) and operator<<= for deep copy. Also, I found over years extremely useful to maintain the source in picked state (not to clear it, as is AFAIK common for C++11 usage).

I agree, for now when compiling in c++11 the operator=(&) should produce a compilation error whenever instantiated, informing the programmer that picking is default and right side either must be enclosed in std::move (or maybe rather some customized Upp::Pick) or use operator<<= for deep copy. would break some old code (but only when compiling c++11) but is more user-friendly. however, for constructor, in c++11 please let us add a (deep-)copy-constructor and initialization list constructor, preferably both enclosed in a single macro, maybe included in the std-compatibility-stuff...

that way backwards-compatibility wouldn't break, instead c++11-users would encounter a different interface to U++, one where deep-copy constructor is default. or should a similar error-message be issued for the copy-constructor too?

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

[Message index]

		Should the pick semantics be changed? By: piotr5 on Tue, 04 March 2014 11:00
		Re: Should the pick semantics be changed? By: mirek on Tue, 04 March 2014 12:12
		Re: Should the pick semantics be changed? By: piotr5 on Tue, 04 March 2014 23:14
		Re: Should the pick semantics be changed? By: mirek on Wed, 05 March 2014 08:54
		Re: Should the pick semantics be changed? By: piotr5 on Wed, 05 March 2014 10:27
		Re: Should the pick semantics be changed? By: mirek on Wed, 05 March 2014 12:02
		Re: Should the pick semantics be changed? By: mirek on Fri, 07 March 2014 09:00
		Re: Should the pick semantics be changed? By: piotr5 on Fri, 07 March 2014 16:23
		Re: Should the pick semantics be changed? By: mirek on Fri, 07 March 2014 16:44
		Re: Should the pick semantics be changed? By: mirek on Sun, 09 March 2014 09:34
		Re: Should the pick semantics be changed? By: piotr5 on Sun, 09 March 2014 13:28
		Re: Should the pick semantics be changed? By: Lance on Sun, 23 March 2014 22:02
		Re: Should the pick semantics be changed? By: piotr5 on Tue, 25 March 2014 19:35
		Re: Should the pick semantics be changed? By: Lance on Wed, 26 March 2014 02:37
		Re: Should the pick semantics be changed? By: Lance on Wed, 26 March 2014 02:48
		Re: Should the pick semantics be changed? By: piotr5 on Wed, 26 March 2014 10:35
		Re: Should the pick semantics be changed? By: mirek on Wed, 26 March 2014 11:38
		Re: Should the pick semantics be changed? By: Lance on Wed, 26 March 2014 21:25
		Re: Should the pick semantics be changed? By: Lance on Wed, 26 March 2014 21:21

Previous Topic:	D lang support
Next Topic:	[Compilation] Include .asm files in build

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

PDF

]

Current Time: Tue Apr 29 16:22:02 CEST 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03968 seconds