6 ms·
Only people who saw nothing bad in passing pairs .begin(), .end() in tons of places in c++ for like 30 years can say that thing like ‘auto&&’ improves anything.
by galkk 2mo ago
Only people who saw nothing bad in passing pairs .begin(), .end() in tons of places in c++ for like 30 years can say that thing like ‘auto&&’ improves anything.
- Tadpole9181 2mo agoWhat exactly is your complaint with it? `auto&&` has been standard syntax in C++ for going on 15 years now and has a very clear, irreplaceable meaning - a type-deduced forward reference - to any remotely competent developer.
- HackerThemAll 2mo agoI think C++ needs more of `:`, `::` and maybe new operators `&&&` and `&&&&`.
- xigoi 2mo agoC++32 will look like for<template> [auto&&&&]:::static (std::for_enumeration_initializer &&⁢ @auto: {{const signed&&&&& i const}}) { }
- lentil_soup 2mo agoand completely unnecessary in that example, it's a string, type string, makes it way easier to understand