At least they managed to kill `auto_ptr`.
Once they've obtained permission to do Step 1 they can add whatever they want, and in a few years for them it's time to repeat "Subset of a superset" again and get permission for Step 1 again. There is no Step 2, it's embarrassing that this keeps working.
Turns out, these two are equivalent in practice (but UB in the C++ standard):
double solve(double a, double b, double c, double d) {
return a + b + c + d;
}
double solve(double a ...) {
return a + 1[&a] + 2[&a] + 3[&a];
}Not in the x86-64 SysV ABI they aren’t. The arguments will be passed in registers (yes, even the variadic ones), so how your compiler will interpret 1[&a] is anybody’s guess. (For me, x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-g++ -O2 yields, essentially, return a+a+a+a; which is certainly an interpretation. I’m also getting strange results from i686-unknown-linux-gnu-g++ -O2, but my x87 assembly is rusty enough that I don’t really get what’s going on there.)
double solve(double a[]) {
return 0[a] + 1[a] + 2[a] + 3[a];
}
solve((double[]){1, 2, 3, 4});
double solve(double a,double b,double c,double d){return a+b+c+d;}
double solve(double a...){return a+1[&a]+2[&a]+3[&a];}
double solve(a,b,c,d)double a,c,b,d;{return a+b+c+d;}In my opinion anyway. C++ feels so bloated these days.
All languages have some spikier edges, there are no languages I know where I think "Well, even if we could start over I have no idea how to improve this". What's notable about C++ is just how rich that "could do better" seam is, so very many of their defaults are wrong, so many of their keywords are the wrong word, so many of their standard library features are allowed, sometimes even mandated to be crap.
I guess that's a preview how C++ require a lifelong commitment.
The difference being that P1219R2 was actually a revised proposal from 2019 not 2021.
I love C, but C++ has worthwhile advantages even if you heavily restrict which features you use.