On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Rodrigo Rivas <rodrigorivasco...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis > <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: >> You were earlier talking about some "unified concept"; weren't you? >> Now, it is shifting to library component. > > With "unified" I meant that the same concept (range) is present both > in the core language and the standard library. And that it would be > wise that both definitions are the same.
I see a core language specification, I see a third party library implementation. I don't see a unified concept. > >> Option 5 does not say that we have to have a library >> that exactly emulates what is in in the core language. > No it does not. That is why I am proposing, If it said that, I would > add nothing. if it would add nothing, then we are in violent agreement that we should not be having the discussion here :-) > BTW, if that function existed, the natural consequence would be to > define the range-for in terms of that function, not to copy-paste the > specification. Ideally, an implementation should just be that: an implementation of a specification, not the specification itself. > >>> I'm merely implying that this list is suitable for this discussion. It >>> looked like you disagree. >> yes, I do. Because what you are suggesting is a change to the >> the ISO C++ definition. This isn't the proper place for that. >> if is an ISO C++ library, then the proper place is a ISO C++ committee forum. > > Yes, but sadly I'm not part of the committee, and since there are > people here that are, I find it useful to post my suggestion here. A better forum is news:comp.std.c++ > Are you saying that in the GCC mailing lists we should discuss only > the use and implementation of the languages, but not their > specifications? I am saying that discussion of the specifications themselves should be conducted in appropriate forum (and I do not believe gcc@ is appropriate forum to discussion range-for specification for itlself), unless, of course, it is the -GCC implementation-= of that specification. I think the original discussion was right on topic, but it diverged into potential modification to the specification itself, at which point it become more appropriate for a different forum. E.g., as far as I understand you were not proposing a GNU extension (I asked that question repeatedly) but rather a potential ISO C++ library extension. > Even if those specifications are in a draft status? Yes -- even more so. In fact by the time were having the discussion today, it was past the status of draft that could be modified without major disruption: the document went into FDIS status. Being in draft status does not magically confer appropriateness for gcc@. > I find that hard quite radical. I'll leave you with that view.
