On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 at 21:17, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> P.S.: Please consider deprecating 'auto' some day. It would be nice to
> see C++'s auto in ISO C some day, even if it's 2060. I'm not entirely
> happy doing `#define auto __auto_type` (of course it's UB, but it's nice) ;)
There's a proposa
On 6/11/22 14:08, Gabriel Ravier wrote:
> Do we want to add a completely unnecessary feature, just for symmetry
with C++, even if it poses a danger of breaking (both human and script)
readability of function declarations/definitions, especially when hidden
in macros?
I actually don't get th
On Sat, 11 Jun 2022, 10:00 Alejandro Colomar,
wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> On 6/11/22 00:47, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > Well, I'd argue the same reasons to remove it from C++. Don't know
> how
> > useful that feature is for C++, though. I bet not much, but am not
> an
> > expert in the
On 6/11/22 11:03, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> On 6/11/22 00:47, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> Well, I'd argue the same reasons to remove it from C++. Don't
know how
>> useful that feature is for C++, though. I bet not much, but am
not an
>> expert in the langua
Hi Jonathan,
On 6/11/22 00:47, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Well, I'd argue the same reasons to remove it from C++. Don't know how
useful that feature is for C++, though. I bet not much, but am not an
expert in the language.
It's used in libstdc++ because I couldn't get an attribute to
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022, 22:29 Alejandro Colomar via Gcc,
wrote:
> [I reordered some of your answers, to better answer]
>
> Hi Jakub,
>
> On 6/10/22 23:16, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 10:40:15PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc
> wrote:
> >> So, could you please drop that from C2
Hi Joseph,
On 6/10/22 23:09, Joseph Myers wrote:
P.S.: The latest draft that I know of is N2731. I guess there are newer ones.
Could you please name the latest one?
It's N2912 (June 8 version - the version originally published on June 7
had various problems; there are still some issues, espec
[I reordered some of your answers, to better answer]
Hi Jakub,
On 6/10/22 23:16, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 10:40:15PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
So, could you please drop that from C2x?
No!
[[attr0]] void foo (void), bar (void);
appertains to both declara
On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 10:40:15PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
> So, could you please drop that from C2x?
No!
For one it diverges from C++, but also it means something different
at the different locations.
[[attr0]] void foo (void), bar (void);
appertains to both declarations, while
v
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
> I'd like to suggest a change in C2x regarding attributes.
The attribute syntax is supposed to accept attributes in exactly the
places they are accepted in C++ (and appertaining to the same entity, for
each such place), for constructs prese
Hi, Joseph!
I'd like to suggest a change in C2x regarding attributes.
Right now, the draft allows function attributes to go right at the
beginning of a function prototype, or just before the opening parenthesis:
[[attr]] type f(params);
type f [[attr]](params);
I'd argue against the second o
11 matches
Mail list logo
