31–40 of 85 posts
C++17 is a slight disappointment, I hope C++20 will be the real deal - concepts could really be a game changer and move semantics needs more fixes :/.
https://dlang.org/concepts.html
You should give D metaprogramming a try. It's a whole new world, a new fantastic point of view.
C++17 is a slight disappointment, I hope C++20 will be the real deal - concepts could really be a game changer and move semantics needs more fixes :/.
D has had concepts for quite a while. They call them template constraints: https://dlang.org/concepts.html You should give D metaprogramming a try. It's a whole new world, a new fantastic point of view.
I'm really impressed at what the standards committee has done, but I'm wondering if we ought to start thinking about a C++2.0 where we can write the C++ that we've learned we want. The poor young-uns learning C++ still have to learn all the old stuff, because otherwise it will bite them sooner or later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
D has had concepts for quite a while. They call them template constraints: https://dlang.org/concepts.html You should give D metaprogramming a try. It's a whole new world, a new fantastic point of view.
That looks really interesting. Is this all done at compile time or runtime? After further reading the answer seems to be compile.
Do any of the standard's people read HN, or is there a way of submitting requests? The STL could seriously use some improvements. std::string doesn't do most of the stuff you want with a string; updating it to an interface like Python's string would be nice. Having a std::vector::append() would be really nice, so I don't have to remember that C++ uses something completely different from every other language. Convenie…
Do any of the standard's people read HN, or is there a way of submitting requests? The STL could seriously use some improvements. std::string doesn't do most of the stuff you want with a string; updating it to an interface like Python's string would be nice. Having a std::vector::append() would be really nice, so I don't have to remember that C++ uses something completely different from every other language. Convenie…
I live in a "fast languages only when necessary, and with restraint" shop. Our C++ is not idiomatic, it is meant for programmers from other languages. Anything with iterators is a bit sketchy. It tends to look more like C than C++, and now that I'm an old person I am perfectly happy with that.
We use `s.count(i) == 1`. It's ok -- clear, readable etc. Doesn't give you an iterator if you want to delete the thing too, but most of the time you don't.
Do any of the standard's people read HN, or is there a way of submitting requests? The STL could seriously use some improvements. std::string doesn't do most of the stuff you want with a string; updating it to an interface like Python's string would be nice. Having a std::vector::append() would be really nice, so I don't have to remember that C++ uses something completely different from every other language. Convenie…
std::set does have a contains() function, it's called count(): http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/set/count
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not as major of an update as previous releases, but there are a lot of little convenience features. String views, same-line nested namespaces, [[fallthrough]], if with init (I'm sure Google single-handedly got this included; it's very Go-reminiscent and really nice when not using exceptions), structured bindings, maybes with std::optional (occasionally useful), and even just something as simple as emplace return…
Its not std::move, but the complexity coming with it. Its a hassle applying move semantics correctly and there is not the one goto solution for simple things. Im not aware of a proposal to change that issue, but at least there should be better defaults. This talk explains the pain quite well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNRju6_yn3o