From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.schemamania.org (rrcs-50-75-19-234.nys.biz.rr.com [50.75.19.234]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBCDB3858401 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 01:15:45 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org CBCDB3858401 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=schemamania.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=schemamania.org Received: from oak.schemamania.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.schemamania.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B2F5256FAFF for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2022 21:15:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 21:15:44 -0400 From: "James K. Lowden" To: David Malcolm via Gcc Subject: Re: [RFC] Using std::unique_ptr and std::make_unique in our code Message-Id: <20220809211544.80ee8ede6a0960c11ab9178f@schemamania.org> In-Reply-To: <6e214b5b8c3c50a72ef2340b6d57481c885fe27e.camel@redhat.com> References: <20220708204651.42624-1-dmalcolm@redhat.com> <6f183e53-02b9-9472-a5cc-9c57c5c0e898@palves.net> <6e214b5b8c3c50a72ef2340b6d57481c885fe27e.camel@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.3 (GTK+ 2.24.28; x86_64--netbsd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_SHORT, NICE_REPLY_A, RDNS_DYNAMIC, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 01:15:47 -0000 On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 20:32:07 -0400 David Malcolm via Gcc wrote: > Perhaps, but right now I prefer to spell out std::unique_ptr, since > I'm not as comfortable with C++11 as I might be. Hi David, [off list] You might be interested to know Bjarne Stroustrup observes that during the development of C++, new features tend to be introduced with long, explicit syntax that no one can misinterpret. Then, over time, as the community becomes comfortable with the new idea (and tired of typing it) it gets briefer. "The prefix template<...> syntax was not my first choice when I designed templates. It was forced upon me by people worried that templates would be misused by less competent programmers, leading to confusion and errors. The heavy syntax for exception handling, try { ... } catch( ... ) { ... }, was a similar story [Stroustrup 2007]. It seems that for every new feature many people demand a LOUD syntax to protect against real and imagined potential problems. After a while, they then complain about verbosity." https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3386320?utm_source=ZHShareTargetIDMore&utm_medium=social&utm_oi=54584470929408 At the very least, you have company. :-) Regards, --jkl