4 ms·

.

beached_whale 2y ago
sure about that? It does, happen to, work on libstdc++/libc++/MS STL but it's not specified to work anywhere but std::tie. The existing practice is to cast to void.
- alexvitkov 2y ago
  can you show an example how? I can't find a case where std::ignore compiles inside a structured binding declaration. https://godbolt.org/z/sjefeGvPf https://godbolt.org/z/sjefeGvPf https://godbolt.org/z/8a7Ps4KdW https://godbolt.org/z/8a7Ps4KdW
  - beached_whale 2y ago
    it will work for assignment/ construction, but isn't part of std c++ is what i mean. at least not yet. structured binding wont, but in the future c++ 26, _ should work there and other places
alexvitkov 2y ago
std::ignore doesn't work in the context of structured bindings. And even if it did, "we already have this" has never stopped the C++ committee from adding something before :)
- ReleaseCandidat 2y ago
  Yes, the "skill" of the commitee to discuss some feature for a really looooooong time and then come up with a solution which is going to be (half) fixed in the next standard always astonishes mé :). I guess with C++38 we'll get a `always_definetly_ignore_this_wothout_any_diagnostic_whatsoever`.
ReleaseCandidat 2y ago
No, that's why `maybe_unused` has been needed.
dundarious 2y ago
If you replace your whole comment with ".", I'm just going to automatically down vote it, so the effect is worse than whatever was originally there. These kinds of "masking" edits prevent good communication. If you want us all to disregard a comment you now totally disown, then just write an edit that prepends/appends that.
- layer8 2y ago
  Maybe they are fine with being downvoted and just want to prevent readers wasting any further time with their comment.
  - dundarious 2y ago
    Writing that in an edit is completely valid -- we're grown up enough to weigh whether to bother reading the comment then. Replacing the whole thing with just "." is not acceptable, IMO. If they're fine with accepting the down votes either way, I still want to register my complaint, pointless as it may be in practice.
    - layer8 2y ago
      It's perfectly okay that you downvote, as that supports the goal of demoting the comment. (The effects of up/downvoting on comment ranking trumps the effect on the author's karma, IMO.) However I don't agree that pseudo-deleting is unacceptable, if for example it contained an incorrect argument and the author thinks there is no value anymore in someone reading it.
      - dundarious 2y ago
        So they presumably think they were fully wrong. Wrong about what? It's often useful to know about mistaken assumptions, etc. Now all the "corrections" in the replies are harder to comprehend. Everybody's work is devalued and made harder as a result of the pseudo-delete.
        2y ago

sure about that? It does, happen to, work on libstdc++/libc++/MS STL but it's not specified to work anywhere but std::tie. The existing practice is to cast to void.

alexvitkov 2y ago
can you show an example how? I can't find a case where std::ignore compiles inside a structured binding declaration. https://godbolt.org/z/sjefeGvPf https://godbolt.org/z/sjefeGvPf https://godbolt.org/z/8a7Ps4KdW https://godbolt.org/z/8a7Ps4KdW
- beached_whale 2y ago
  it will work for assignment/ construction, but isn't part of std c++ is what i mean. at least not yet. structured binding wont, but in the future c++ 26, _ should work there and other places

alexvitkov 2y ago

std::ignore doesn't work in the context of structured bindings. And even if it did, "we already have this" has never stopped the C++ committee from adding something before :)

ReleaseCandidat 2y ago
Yes, the "skill" of the commitee to discuss some feature for a really looooooong time and then come up with a solution which is going to be (half) fixed in the next standard always astonishes mé :). I guess with C++38 we'll get a `always_definetly_ignore_this_wothout_any_diagnostic_whatsoever`.

ReleaseCandidat 2y ago

No, that's why `maybe_unused` has been needed.

dundarious 2y ago

If you replace your whole comment with ".", I'm just going to automatically down vote it, so the effect is worse than whatever was originally there. These kinds of "masking" edits prevent good communication. If you want us all to disregard a comment you now totally disown, then just write an edit that prepends/appends that.

layer8 2y ago
Maybe they are fine with being downvoted and just want to prevent readers wasting any further time with their comment.
- dundarious 2y ago
  Writing that in an edit is completely valid -- we're grown up enough to weigh whether to bother reading the comment then. Replacing the whole thing with just "." is not acceptable, IMO. If they're fine with accepting the down votes either way, I still want to register my complaint, pointless as it may be in practice.
  - layer8 2y ago
    It's perfectly okay that you downvote, as that supports the goal of demoting the comment. (The effects of up/downvoting on comment ranking trumps the effect on the author's karma, IMO.) However I don't agree that pseudo-deleting is unacceptable, if for example it contained an incorrect argument and the author thinks there is no value anymore in someone reading it.
    - dundarious 2y ago
      So they presumably think they were fully wrong. Wrong about what? It's often useful to know about mistaken assumptions, etc. Now all the "corrections" in the replies are harder to comprehend. Everybody's work is devalued and made harder as a result of the pseudo-delete.
      - 2y ago