On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 08:57:58 UTC, Chris wrote:
On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 19:48:41 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 19:24:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/8/2015 11:17 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Apparently modules have been pushed into a Technical
Specification, and won't be
ready on time for inclusion into ANSI C++ 17.
https://botondballo.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/trip-report-c-standards-meeting-in-lenexa-may-2015/
So, here is another feature that D wins over C++.
Looks like C++ is adopting ever more D features:
"proposed a syntax for declaring preconditions,
postconditions, and invariants for a function in its
interface (i.e. in its declaration), primarily for the
purpose of static analysis and enabling compiler
optimizations."
"Bjarne presented the latest version of his proposal for
automatically generating comparison operators for class
types."
"Unified call syntax. This proposal, by Bjarne, seeks to
unify the member (x.f(y)) and non-member (f(x, y)) call
syntaxes by allowing functions of either kind to be invoked
by syntax of either kind."
"A restricted form of static_if;"
"Extending static_assert to allow taking for the error
message not just a string literal, but any constant
expression that can be converted to a string literal."
"noexcept(auto), which basically means “deduce the
noexcept-ness of this function from the noexcept-ness of the
functions it calls." (This is essentially doing "nothrow"
attribute inference.)
"Eric Niebler came to that meeting with a detailed and well
fleshed-out design for ranges in the standard library."
This is really funny. After years of ignoring or bashing and
ridiculing D. Those who work with D know who useful these
features are. They must have worked with it too ;)
I see a problem that having those features in C++ will reduce
the desire from companies to adopt D.
Yes and no. In D these features have been carefully crafted to
be part and parcel of the language (there are still some rough
edges, but well). In C++ it's gonna be the usual "glue it on
top of what we have and make complicated rules in order not
interfere with legacy code". In short, it's gonna be a
nightmare to use and people will stick to what they know, I
think.
+1
the range library proposal is *ugly,* and the author did the best
he could honestly.
on the topic of D advancing ahead of C++, I think language
built-in tuples and pattern matching would be a good start : )
