5 ms·

If you make the mistake of creating an implicit constructor when you shouldn't, yeah, but that's your mistake. The argument is fine.

g15jv2dp 2y ago
Are you saying that for the first line, one could say that... > Without knowing the type of the vector, we don’t know what constructor it’s invoking, so we can’t really say what that line is doing.
- dataflow 2y ago
  No, that's not what I'm saying. I have no idea where you saw me saying anything about those 2 lines or vectors in my sentences. I am saying 1-arg constructors that aren't semantically "conversions" from that arg need to be be explicit, not implicit. If you make them implicit, that's your mistake; tools can catch that mistake statically.
  - g15jv2dp 2y ago
    Uh. I'll try to be more explicit. Let's say that someone in a library somewhere has made what you consider to be a mistake. Or they consider something to be a conversion but the constructor is not trivial. For the push_back construction, can you then say what the call does without knowing the types?
    - dataflow 2y ago
      > Let's say that someone in a library somewhere has made what you consider to be a mistake. Or they consider something to be a conversion but the constructor is not trivial. For the push_back construction, can you then say what the call does without knowing the types? I don't get the point of your question. You might as well ask: "Let's say someone in a library somewhere has defined their type's operator< to wipe your disk. If you see std::less<>()(a, b), can you say what the call does without knowing the types?" To which the answer is... well, obviously, no. Same answer to your question. What is this supposed to imply?
      - lumb63 2y ago
        This conversation makes me really happy I have successfully avoided C++ for the past two years.
        dataflow 2y ago
        There was very little in this conversation that was C++ specific, so it's kind of baffling that this conversation led you to that conclusion. But in general: yes, that's a good thing. Don't use C++ if you don't need to. It has too many sharp edges and it shouldn't be used unless it's really necessary.
      - Kamq 2y ago
        Let's narrow this down even more. Someone has made an implicit constructor that makes a network call because... people are dumb. This implicit constructor takes an integer. Does the following code make a network call? vec.push_back(4);
        dataflow 2y ago
        That obviously depends on the type of vec, which you've given no information about.
        g15jv2dp 2y ago
        ...could it be that > Without knowing the type of the vector, we don’t know what constructor it’s invoking, so we can’t really say what that line is doing.
        dataflow 2y ago
        Yes? The sky is also blue. Did I ever disagree with either? What point are you trying to make?

g15jv2dp 2y ago

Are you saying that for the first line, one could say that... > Without knowing the type of the vector, we don’t know what constructor it’s invoking, so we can’t really say what that line is doing.

dataflow 2y ago
No, that's not what I'm saying. I have no idea where you saw me saying anything about those 2 lines or vectors in my sentences. I am saying 1-arg constructors that aren't semantically "conversions" from that arg need to be be explicit, not implicit. If you make them implicit, that's your mistake; tools can catch that mistake statically.
- g15jv2dp 2y ago
  Uh. I'll try to be more explicit. Let's say that someone in a library somewhere has made what you consider to be a mistake. Or they consider something to be a conversion but the constructor is not trivial. For the push_back construction, can you then say what the call does without knowing the types?
  - dataflow 2y ago
    > Let's say that someone in a library somewhere has made what you consider to be a mistake. Or they consider something to be a conversion but the constructor is not trivial. For the push_back construction, can you then say what the call does without knowing the types? I don't get the point of your question. You might as well ask: "Let's say someone in a library somewhere has defined their type's operator< to wipe your disk. If you see std::less<>()(a, b), can you say what the call does without knowing the types?" To which the answer is... well, obviously, no. Same answer to your question. What is this supposed to imply?
    - lumb63 2y ago
      This conversation makes me really happy I have successfully avoided C++ for the past two years.
      - dataflow 2y ago
        There was very little in this conversation that was C++ specific, so it's kind of baffling that this conversation led you to that conclusion. But in general: yes, that's a good thing. Don't use C++ if you don't need to. It has too many sharp edges and it shouldn't be used unless it's really necessary.
    - Kamq 2y ago
      Let's narrow this down even more. Someone has made an implicit constructor that makes a network call because... people are dumb. This implicit constructor takes an integer. Does the following code make a network call? vec.push_back(4);
      - dataflow 2y ago
        That obviously depends on the type of vec, which you've given no information about.
        g15jv2dp 2y ago
        ...could it be that > Without knowing the type of the vector, we don’t know what constructor it’s invoking, so we can’t really say what that line is doing.
        dataflow 2y ago
        Yes? The sky is also blue. Did I ever disagree with either? What point are you trying to make?