Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: constexpr keyword is unnecessary
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 10:09:29 -0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <veggq8$mbh9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <veb5fi$3ll7j$1@dont-email.me> <vedv0a$5m19$1@dont-email.me>
 <veeqhi$ar0c$2@dont-email.me> <veg59o$kolq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vegbeb$llri$2@dont-email.me>
 <vegc3l$lqrd$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vegevc$m5na$1@dont-email.me>
 <vegg4q$mdj0$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 15:09:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b9d5dd9688ffdaba1d061cdfa3066275";
	logging-data="732713"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX194Zjxj/uJtrDcI94lCTP4+DqmqoxmWxWM="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2e71MNg6Ro4pEhGyp7Wp1HAtdyQ=
In-Reply-To: <vegg4q$mdj0$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 2354

Em 10/13/2024 9:58 AM, Bonita Montero escreveu:
> Am 13.10.2024 um 14:38 schrieb Thiago Adams:
>> Em 10/13/2024 8:49 AM, Bonita Montero escreveu:
>>> Am 13.10.2024 um 13:37 schrieb Thiago Adams:
>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>> constexpr is like - "require the initializer to be a constant 
>>>> expression." But the compiler will have to check it anyway.
>>>
>>> I cannot understand why you are so militantly against this
>>> new language feature that can be understood in 10 seconds.
>>>
>>
>> I have seen code like this:
>>
>> void func()
>> {
>>     constexpr int c = 1;
>>     f(c);
>> }
>>
>> For some reason, people believe that adding constexpr will magically 
>> improve optimization. In reality, it doesn't change anything compared 
>> to const and often reflects a misunderstanding of how the compiler 
>> works. As a result, I end up having to explain it. In this sense, 
>> constexpr is viral and spreads confusion.
> 
> constexpr doesn't hurt.


It spreads confusion, and makes code incompatible with previous versions 
of C "for free".