Our great sponsors
-
libCat
🐈⬛ A runtime for C++26 w/out libC or POSIX. Smaller binaries, only arena allocators, SIMD, stronger type safety than STL, and value-based errors!
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
But suppose that you have code with no standard library calls at all. Would it still make sense to choose this naming convention? This is actually possible, with a few special exceptions. GCC requires that an implementation of std::source_location has very particular class member names, GCC assigns special semantics to a few function names including std::construct_at and std::move (people seem to know it's inlined, but did you know std::move is required for move-related warnings?), and most intrusively of all, a promise_type must be snake_case. Other names can be worked around by using them into a different namespace with a different letter-case, but promise_type seems unavoidable.
Related posts
- Why Janet?
- std::initializer_list in C++ 1/2 - Internals and Use Cases
- C++ is essentially unusable without incurring undefined behavior because of it's failure to handle type punning.
- Competitive programmer using c++, but absolutely ignorant of other things the language can do here. What else can c++ do?
- Software disenchantment - why does modern programming seem to lack of care for efficiency, simplicity, and excellence