
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 16:58, Vinnie Falco
I see where you're coming from [a good place], but just look at stuff
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:51 AM degski
wrote: like https://github.com/serge-sans-paille/frozen or https://github.com/gnzlbg/static_vector , that's cool stuff..
Yes it is cool, but of no use to C++11 users.
That's why they should become C++17 users.
Also, don't forget the parallel constructs, who needs omp:
I agree here, but there is no reason why this can't be a conditionally enabled feature which is available only under cxx-new. It doesn't imply that the entire library should require cxx-new.
There goes up your maintenance burden and somewhere it will bite.
You're kiddin', right?
No.
Didn't think you were.
constexpr if
This is a convenience to the author but doesn't directly benefit users. The same result can be achieved in C++11, but with more code.
TMP, sure, but it's complex and hell to debug. You should not see those features in isolation as you seem to do, it's when you combine them, the constexpr if, the constexpr lambda's etc, the sum is more than the individual bits. Boost.Variant works in C++11
any, optional
Both are available in Boost, in C++11
I did not miss that, but I prefer the version maintained by my library supplier, he/she makes sure it works correctly with the rest of my STL.
lamda capture of 'this' (very handy),
Can be accomplished by expression the lambda as a class.
Or by typing this in the capture list, what's easier?
Yes, I hear your argument. But I do think that for something new,
C++14 would be a better start
I disagree. C++14 is a pointless update. Either go C++11, or go C++17.
Maybe, whether it's pointless I'm not capable of judging, I must admit I never noticed C++14 (I did, unknowingly, use features of it, though), but I'd vote for C++17, then. We can just conclude [let's do that] that we are coming from different directions. The sales-argument seems important to you, I don't need to sell anything. degski -- *"Big boys don't cry" - **Eric Stewart, Graham Gouldman*