This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Optimzed vs. readable code

From: Howard Hinnant <hhinnant at apple dot com>
To: libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:04:27 -0800
Subject: Re: Optimzed vs. readable code
References: <pan.2005.11.29.16.48.37.733665@levallois.eu.org> <F2B5F487-EF4D-43E4-B2D2-AD7EA914F24F@apple.com> <pan.2005.11.29.22.27.59.180878@levallois.eu.org> <4348dea50511300918w1a9a9ad1g@mail.gmail.com> <20051130173343.GD18129@bateleur.arcanes.fr.eu.org> <m3k6epvocb.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>

On Nov 30, 2005, at 1:05 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

If you really want to make the codes readable, here is a better and
more useful (in my mind) project for you:  Implement the #nospam CPP
directives so that we don't have to uglify most of the names.

I would dearly like to see this done too.

Two (probably stupid) questions:

1. Is #nospam slang for #scope in N1614, or is it something similar but different?

2. Do we have a standards leg to stand on here? I truly hope something like #scope makes it into C++0X. What is our current policy regarding really useful but not-yet-standard functionality like this? I'm asking in the context of your recent (and reasonable) posting regarding move semantics.

-Howard

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Optimzed vs. readable code
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]