FeedaMail: Comments for Sutter’s Mill

	Comments for Sutter's Mill
	(Sponsor this newsletter) Comment on Trip report: Winter ISO C++ standards meeting by Erkin Alp Güney Module and package system is going to be a breakthrough.( #package ... ) And they are doing this respecting backwards compatibility in every regard. If only C also adopted a compatible module system. Java, CLR, Python, and D has this. Read More » Comment on Trip report: Winter ISO C++ standards meeting by jmckesson > `path` defines implicit conversion to `string` and thus can be used in every case where string is currently used, including fstream constructors. (The corresponding note mentions exactly this use case). Not good enough. One of the good things about `path` is that it can encode Unicode paths. The goal would be the ability to do this: fs::path pth = …; //Get a path with possible Unicode characters. std::ofstream strm(pth); That won’t work with an implicit conversion to `std::string`. At least, not on Windows. The Windows version of iostreams cannot use UTF-8 paths. The only APIs that can take the full set of Unicode strings use 16-bit `wchar_t`-based strings. `path` gives us a way to make this platform-independent. We can use UTF-8 strings, feed them into `path`, and if the implementation needs to convert it into UTF-16, so be it. And vice-versa. The problem is opening a file with it. Implicit conversion to `std::string` will not help, for the above reason. Even implicit conversion to `basic_string` won’t work, because `std::ofstream` cannot take a `std::wstring`. It only takes `char*` and `const string&`. This needs to be standardized. Also, we need versions of fopen that will take `path` as well. More people use the C file IO than the C++ file IO, particularly in production code. Read More » Comment on Trip report: Winter ISO C++ standards meeting by Markus Thank you for this detailed overview and explanation of the current way of working! It all seems to be a lot more work than is visible from the outside. Thus, also many thanks to you experts bringing in those new features and ensuring the quality of future C++. However, having read other trip reports and reddit discussions I’m wondering what is meant by often mentioned more experience and user feedback. I feel the barrier to express simple positive feedback on a proposal or experimental implementation to be quite high. Writing an email to the authors with a complaint or bug report appears much more likely to happen. Have you considered something like a stackoverflow/github site for C++ proposals? That would give many of us average programmers the possibility to easily comment on and, possibly more importantly, up-vote or down-vote both a proposal and other comments. In particular for controversial features such direct positive and negative user feedback might help getting faster to an agreement. Or, it might bring up the need for other features not yet considered necessary. Also, perhaps more people would volunteer and start working on or testing experimental implementations, in particular in those early stages. Finally, at which of the 11 stages would the Concepts TS be currently? Read More » Comment on Trip report: Winter ISO C++ standards meeting by bkuhns I think in context of the “when” over “what” attitude of C++14 and C++17, it makes sense to seriously consider a 2-year cadence. There is a lot of disappointment (AFAICT) over what did *not* ship in C++17, but that’s because now we have to wait 3 years at minimum to see those omissions in an IS. This is especially disappointing when hearing that a feature like Concepts was very nearly ready *now*. Switching to a 2-year cadence may make each release less impressive, but it will soften the blow to users anticipating certain features that don’t make it and possibly reduce pressure to shoehorn things into each IS if it’s “close enough”. Though, starting a 2-year release cadence on an odd-numbered year makes me cringe inside. Read More » Comment on Trip report: Winter ISO C++ standards meeting by Timothy Herb, what do you think about Rust? Is competition from Rust driving C++17? Read More » Comment on Trip report: Winter ISO C++ standards meeting by feeded What happened to post categories on this blog? I’m subscribed to the ‘C++’ category RSS feed and now I see I’ve missed lots of C++-related posts because for some reason they are ‘Uncategorized’ and thus not present in the feed… Read More » Comment on Trip report: Winter ISO C++ standards meeting by Herb Sutter @Markus: Thanks for the suggestions! We’ve pondered using something like Discourse. Re Concepts, it’s is in Stage 11 — a published TS “beta feature branch” that’s nearly ready to merge and repeat Stages 6-10 in the IS “trunk” itself. @feeded: I wasn’t sure if anyone was using the blog categories so I stopped adding them a year or two ago. Now that you’ve noticed, I’ve gone back and added the “C++” tag to this and other posts. :) @Timothy: Not that I know of. Personally I'm a big fan of multiple languages and language design, and while I’m sure committee members are aware of other languages, I think the committee is doing the right thing: Moving C++ itself ahead to stay current with its bread-and-butter goal of being a portable close-to-the-metal language that gives you rich abstractions that are also very efficient. It is very easy to be distracted by chasing perceived competitors instead of keeping one's eyes on one's own ball. Read More »
	(Sponsor this newsletter)
	Delievered to you by Feedamail. Unsubscribe