Re: Deprecating min/max extension in C++

2005-03-09 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
"Giovanni Bajo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Since there is no exact replacements And that statement is false; and you do know that. -- Gaby

Re: Deprecating min/max extension in C++

2005-03-09 Thread Sundell Software
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 18:48:06 +0100, Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... which do not handle promotions. So you do not consider useful to have a > min/max operator with promotion (so that it would work exactly like any > other operator) just because there is a cheap version without promot

Re: Deprecating min/max extension in C++

2005-03-09 Thread Robert Dewar
Giovanni Bajo wrote: ... which do not handle promotions. So you do not consider useful to have a min/max operator with promotion (so that it would work exactly like any other operator) just because there is a cheap version without promotion. And my statement that min() and max() are not exact repla

Re: Deprecating min/max extension in C++

2005-03-09 Thread Giovanni Bajo
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Because the example was just an example. In real code, "3" is probably a variable of integer type, and "4.0f" is probably a variable of floating point type. >>> >>> Which we have not seen yet, for the purpose of assessing the purpoted >>>

Re: Deprecating min/max extension in C++

2005-03-09 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
"Giovanni Bajo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | | >> Because the example was just an example. In real code, "3" is probably a | >> variable of integer type, and "4.0f" is probably a variable of floating | >> point type. | > | > Which we have not seen ye

Re: Deprecating min/max extension in C++

2005-03-09 Thread Giovanni Bajo
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Because the example was just an example. In real code, "3" is probably a >> variable of integer type, and "4.0f" is probably a variable of floating >> point type. > > Which we have not seen yet, for the purpose of assessing the purpoted > usefulness i

Re: Deprecating min/max extension in C++

2005-03-09 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
"Giovanni Bajo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | | >>> IMO, if these are C++-only, it's relatively easy to deprecate these | >>> extension -- but I'd like to hear from Jason and Nathan, and also the | >>> user community before we do that. Of all the ext

Re: Deprecating min/max extension in C++

2005-03-09 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
Olivier Galibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 07:04:39AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > That is a rather weak argument. What is the type of the argument if | > it were possible? | | float obviously. You follow the standard promotion/type resolution | rules you alrea

Re: Deprecating min/max extension in C++

2005-03-09 Thread Giovanni Bajo
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> IMO, if these are C++-only, it's relatively easy to deprecate these >>> extension -- but I'd like to hear from Jason and Nathan, and also the >>> user community before we do that. Of all the extensions we've had, this >>> one really hasn't been that

Re: Deprecating min/max extension in C++

2005-03-09 Thread Olivier Galibert
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 07:04:39AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > That is a rather weak argument. What is the type of the argument if > it were possible? float obviously. You follow the standard promotion/type resolution rules you already handle for operators like +. Done correctly, min/max a

Re: Deprecating min/max extension in C++

2005-03-08 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
"Giovanni Bajo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | | > IMO, if these are C++-only, it's relatively easy to deprecate these | > extension -- but I'd like to hear from Jason and Nathan, and also the | > user community before we do that. Of all the extensions w

Re: Deprecating min/max extension in C++

2005-03-08 Thread Andrew Pinski
On Mar 8, 2005, at 8:04 AM, Giovanni Bajo wrote: Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well, that sounds largely impossible. Can you point exactly which bug are you talking of? I know for a fact that the extension itself has always worked for basic rvalue usage, with basic types. Instead, I wou

Re: Deprecating min/max extension in C++

2005-03-08 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 02:06:48PM +0100, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > IMO, if these are C++-only, it's relatively easy to deprecate these > > extension -- but I'd like to hear from Jason and Nathan, and also the > > user community before we do that. Of a

Deprecating min/max extension in C++

2005-03-08 Thread Giovanni Bajo
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IMO, if these are C++-only, it's relatively easy to deprecate these > extension -- but I'd like to hear from Jason and Nathan, and also the > user community before we do that. Of all the extensions we've had, this > one really hasn't been that problemati

Deprecating min/max extension in C++

2005-03-08 Thread Giovanni Bajo
Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Well, that sounds largely impossible. Can you point exactly which bug >> are >> you talking of? I know for a fact that the extension itself has always >> worked for basic rvalue usage, with basic types. Instead, I would not >> be >> surprised if some mor