C++26: Std:Is_within_lifetime
sandordargo.com
C++26: Std:Is_within_lifetime
1–10 of 75 posts
Re: C++26: Std:Is_within_lifetime
#2C++ people will point to this and say *See, C++ is still evolving and we ARE taking memory problems seriously*. You sure are, gramps.
Re: C++26: Std:Is_within_lifetime
#3Is this the first type of sum-type option choosing statement present for C++ unions? I've been waiting for this feature since the year 1978.
Still, it's a wasted opportunity not to have a language-level overload to the `switch` statement that allows nice pattern matching. Even with std::is_within_lifetime C++ unions are prone to errors and hard to work with.
Re: C++26: Std:Is_within_lifetime
#4The problem pointed out in the article seems a little silly. We're adding an entire language feature because someone wanted an optional bool class? Why not just create a uint8_t with three values: OPTIONAL_BOOL_FASLE, OPTIONAL_BOOL_TRUE, OPTIONAL_BOOL_UNDEFINED?
Doing so takes the same space as a bool, and could be wrapped in a class if desired to provide a nicer interface.
Re: C++26: Std:Is_within_lifetime
#5In my C++ all members of a union are always active.
Re: C++26: Std:Is_within_lifetime
#6This could be neat, maybe. I'll never use it.
Re: C++26: Std:Is_within_lifetime
#7If only people learnt to program properly and ditched unions completely...
Re: C++26: Std:Is_within_lifetime
#8The problem pointed out in the article seems a little silly. We're adding an entire language feature because someone wanted an optional bool class? Why not just create a uint8_t with three values: OPTIONAL_BOOL_FASLE, OPTIONAL_BOOL_TRUE, OPTIONAL_BOOL_UNDEFINED? Doing so takes the same space as a bool, and could be wrapped in a class if desired to provide a nicer interface.
Exactly my thought. Or a typed enum: enum class uint8_t { NAH, YEAH, OMGWTF };
I'm (fairly) sure there's a good reason for that language feature, but the justification the blog article gives is super weak.
Re: C++26: Std:Is_within_lifetime
#9Is this the first type of sum-type option choosing statement present for C++ unions? I've been waiting for this feature since the year 1978. Still, it's a wasted opportunity not to have a language-level overload to the `switch` statement that allows nice pattern matching. Even with std::is_within_lifetime C++ unions are prone to errors and hard to work with.
Since C++17 there is std::variant
Re: C++26: Std:Is_within_lifetime
#10Mature lanagues like CPP should stop adding more features to the language/std. Adding features to the language just makes it more complex, and adding to the std library just adds more overhead, and maybe even security issues.