Hacker News Reader

Comment by thecodedmessage | Hacker News Reader

What part of "first-class" don't you understand??

ETA: std::variant is one of the least ergonomic user interfaces I've ever seen. std::tuple seems great until you realize that most PLs that support tuples just do "(,)"s for them, in creating, binding, and naming the type. C++'s versions are just unacceptable, and structured bindings only help on the binding side.

First-class support for these is important. There's no reason they should be in the standard library rather than built into the language itself, besides historical mistakes.

View on HN

> std::tuple seems great until you realize that most PLs that support tuples just do "(,)"s for them, in creating, binding, and naming the type.

This C++ code compiles and does what a casual reader would expect it to do:

    #include <string>
    #include <tuple>

    using Foo = std::tuple<int, std::string, float>;

    Foo foo(int a, const char* b, double c)
    {
      return {a,b,c};
    }

godbolt: https://godbolt.org/z/Koa4zYT99

I gotta be honest, this interface is exactly what I would like a tuple API to look like. I want to declare my tuple as a `tuple`, I want to give it a friendly name, and I want to explicitly declare the types in the tuple, and I want to all of that at compile time. This API is exactly the verbosity that I want; I would be unhappy with either more or less boilerplate than this.

> First-class support for these is important.

Agree to disagree.

How do you represent state machines, ASTs, or messages of different types? Sum types are great for those! I assume you don’t use std::variant for that? Have you ever written a tagged union when std::variant was available for clarity? Why the tagging boilerplate?

I use std::variant for all that.

Why are you assuming I don't use them? Sum types are great.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com