New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Variadics syntax #2846
Labels
leads question
A question for the leads team
Comments
I've made some major revisions to #2240 that somewhat change the context for this question. In particular:
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Summary of issue:
The variadics syntax currently proposed in #2240 is based on symbolic tokens that are quite visually noisy (if not downright ugly). Following discussions at C++Now, I've added a keyword-based syntax as an alternative-considered. It's worth noting that it isn't purely a "re-skin" -- it entails some minor functional and conceptual changes, and probably a different approach to exposition, so changing syntaxes will not be a mere find/replace. For that reason, and because changing the basic vocabulary mid-stream could be disruptive to the discussion, I don't want to change the body of the proposal to the new syntax unless we're confident that it's what we will adopt (or at least pretty close).
Consequently, I would appreciate a decision from the leads about which syntax we should use for variadics.
Details:
See #2240, especially the "Proposal" and "Keyword syntax" sections of p2240.md, which describe the alternatives and the tradeoffs between them. I'm not sure if it will be useful to duplicate any of that here, since it may change based on review feedback. I am of course open to changing the spellings and other specifics of the two alternatives, and/or adding more alternatives, but I'd tentatively suggest having those discussions on the review of #2240, and reserving this issue for discussion of the final choice.
Any other information that you want to share?
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: