cppfront VS draft

In this article, we will explore how CppFront aims to make C++ a better place by introducing a new syntax, improving safety and usability and providing modern features that align with good programming practices - all while maintaining full interoperability with C++.

> And I'm left wondering, is this just how C++ is? Can't the language provide tooling for me to better adhere to its guidelines

Well, first, the language can't provide tooling: C++ is defined formally, not through tools; and tools are not part of the standard. This is unlike, say, Rust, where IIANM - so far, Rust has been what the Rust compiler accepts.

But it's not just that. C++ design principles/goals include:

* multi-paradigmatism;

* good backwards compatibility;

* "don't pay for what you don't use"

and all of these in combination prevent baking in almost anything: It will either break existing code; or force you to program a certain way, while legitimate alternatives exist; or have some overhead, which you may not want to pay necessarily.

And yet - there are attempts to "square the circle". An example is Herb Sutter's initiative, cppfront, whose approach is to take in an arguably nicer/better/easier/safer syntax, and transpile it into C++ :

https://github.com/hsutter/cppfront/

I’m not fond of adding an increasing number of specific compiler options for memory-safety. I love -faddress=sanitizer or -fsanitize. But the historically growing number of warning which need to be turned on is an issue. For example the options -Wconversion, -Wsign-conversion and -Warith-conversion shall be default with C++26. And if your code doesn’t compile use either an older revision or turn it deliberately off (saying: I’m aware, read the handbook, I take the risk).

I want some of not all the ideas of CPP2/cppfront[1] in C++XX. Finally using #unsafe when needed, like Rust. C++ does evolve over decades, more like other languages.

[1] https://github.com/hsutter/cppfront

CPP2/cppfront:

https://github.com/hsutter/cppfront

I hope we see this in C++26 as optional mode i.e. #safe and #unsafe and same for #impdef or so.

C++23 is done. But C++ is not! In this talk, the author shares his personal perspectives on an ongoing and very active evolution of C++, updates on his cppfront experimental compiler, and why compatibility is essential to the further success of the C++ development.

https://github.com/hsutter/cppfront

But his side project at Microsoft didn't gain traction with gcc, clang, etc and everybody else in the industry. So at this point, the C++ committee will be perceived as "so far behind" ... because there's nothing for them to vote on.

I should have said the "latest standard", not "spec", if we're being technical. But EVERY bit of official material is very clear about asserting that C++23 is still a preview/in-progress, not a standard. Saying otherwise is, strictly speaking, incorrect.

https://isocpp.org/std/the-standard

https://www.iso.org/standard/79358.html

https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/blob/main/papers/n4951.md

[3] https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/releases/tag/n4917

*This is a joke, but only barely so.

pdf

I'm currently going through Annex A of C++20, but I can't find the definition of "designator brace-or-equal-initializer", and couldn't find much formal information on it in an obvious way. The newest source on [decl] (https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/blob/main/source/declarations.tex) also doesn't seem to have it. Am I missing anything, or is this a missing definition in the standard grammar?

Which standard specifically are you quoting there? I checked an old and a new C++ draft in https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/tree/main/papers, and in neither one did 6.3 have anything like that.

https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/releases/download/n4917/n4917.pdf (page 1, chapter 1 scope):

PRs for C++ are at https://github.com/cplusplus/draft But the discussion for a PR is via https://isocpp.org/std/submit-a-proposal

C/C++