|
|
|
|
|
|
by SAHChandler
3179 days ago
|
|
|
That post in particular was a subject of discussion at CppCon for a hot second and is partially why I mentioned the Rust thing. There are other things as well, but I don't want to rake people if it isn't necessary. I pay attention to the Rust subreddit and I see enough misconceptions about C++ and how it works in various comments that it helped reinforce my choice to include that snarky statement. I do understand why so many C++ programmers at CppCon thought that Rust can be dismissed as a fad because of its community's understanding of C++. That said, this sort of parroting about how C++ works and why it is "bad" is everywhere and you can even see it in the comments on this very submission (such as mention of std::variant and implicit conversion to bool. That specific issue is easily remedied but wasn't part of the specification. It's been noted as a defect and will be fixed "soon"?) I still chuckle when randos make arguments like "C++ can't be parsed with an LALR parser", or "virtual functions are more expensive than function pointers", as if the former is the end of the world, and the latter is a checkmate that will suddenly make my knees week, arms heavy. There's code in my editor, and it's just spaghetti. |
|
|
I'm not an expert on parsers but I don't think LALR parser can evaluate constexpr C++ functions which is required for parsing C++.
E.g. in the following code, expression `A<f()>::a * u` will parse either as a variable declaration (int* u) or a multiplication (5 * 5) depending on the value returned by constexpr function f:
template<bool b> class A {};
template<> struct A<true> { typedef int a; };
template<> struct A<false> { static const int a = 5; };
constexpr bool f() { return true; }
const int u = 5;
int main() { A<f()>::a * u; }