Re:New C features in GCC 13
by flohofwoe on Friday May 05, 2023 @07:10AM
(#35827717)
Don't know, you're in WG14, not me :D
Maybe 'const' can't be fixed without breaking existing source code?
I don't really have a problem with adding a new keyword for 'actually const', maybe calling it 'constexpr' means C++ people have wrong expectations though, dunno.
For me, having constexpr being explicit about only accepting actual constant expressions, and creating an error otherwise (instead of silently falling back to a 'runtime expression') is fine, but the existing keyword 'const' has an entirely different meaning, there's just an unfortunate naming collision with other languages where const means 'compile time constant'.
Maybe 'const' can't be fixed without breaking existing source code?
I don't really have a problem with adding a new keyword for 'actually const', maybe calling it 'constexpr' means C++ people have wrong expectations though, dunno.
For me, having constexpr being explicit about only accepting actual constant expressions, and creating an error otherwise (instead of silently falling back to a 'runtime expression') is fine, but the existing keyword 'const' has an entirely different meaning, there's just an unfortunate naming collision with other languages where const means 'compile time constant'.