Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: constexpr keyword is unnecessary
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 15:35:02 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <vegia7$mofs$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$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <veggq8$mbh9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vegh32$mi48$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 15:35:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0f256deb82ef31f28ec6905b9c2da414";
	logging-data="745980"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18hYPhgtdjL8Dzy6GCo2l7c"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fSbDioB2mx9oz04WdK3DV2tnq90=
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
In-Reply-To: <vegh32$mi48$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
Bytes: 2737

On 13.10.2024 15:14, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 13.10.2024 um 15:09 schrieb Thiago Adams:
>> 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:
>>>
>>> constexpr doesn't hurt.
>>
>> It spreads confusion, ...
> 
> It can be understood in 10s.

I doubt that. - If you need a technical term for some "internal"
requirement you typically need a lot of background information
that (usually?) is pointless to a programmer.

What do I (in my role as a solution programmer) gain from it?

In that role specifically, but also generally, I think that
everything that a programming language can do under the hood
should not be a (concept-)burden to the programmer.

(Note that I'm not arguing against it.)

>> ... and makes code incompatible with previous versions  of C "for free".
> 
> New improvements are always incompatible and there are mature C23
> compilers.

What do I (in my role as a solution programmer) gain from it?
Is it "necessary" (as the topic formulates it)?

Is it reasonable to subsume it with the "const" keyword, as the
OP suggests. - I am honestly asking, and interested in whether
that makes sense or not. (Yet I haven't seen a clear answer, or
maybe I have missed it.)

Janis