Re: constexpr keyword is unnecessary

On 13.10.2024 16:41, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 13.10.2024 um 16:33 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
 

This is not the least convincing. Since you seem to express only a
language/compiler-internal theme, not any application programmers'
demand.

 
I don't understand how people can argue so desperately against a
feature that is so simple and that makes the code more readable.

I'm aware that you are obviously in battle-mode and thus completely
missed that I'm not "against a feature" but just try to understand
the rationale for that. - Again you evaded answering that question,
and I see my suspicion confirmed that there is no gain.

For me, writing  int i = 0;  and  const int i = 0;  is perfectly
readable, and (unnecessarily!) adding another keyword degrades
readability.

As a programmer I expect a compiler to be able to detect constant
expressions, I don't want to litter my program code with technical
constructs to individually tell - on a per-statement basis - the
compiler that a specific constant expression should be evaluated
during compile-time and not postponed to run-time. To support a
simple compiler I think it's okay to instruct him explicitly to
spend more effort pre-evaluating constant expressions, say be a
compiler option. But certainly not by spreading keywords across
the code thereby making the code _less readable_.

(And, as you can derive from what I wrote, I find '_Static_eval'
also not increasing readability.)

Janis