Hacker News Reader

Comment by Night_Thastus | Hacker News Reader

I look at C++ code like this and feel like it's from a different planet. These are keywords and approaches I just never use myself. Templates ocassionally, but auto templates? std::meta? Whatever [:Member:] is? nonstatic_data_members_of? std::is_void_v? Plus the lambdas make this syntax even worse.

It feels like I'm looking at a conlang instead of C++.

Not hating the author, I'm sure they know their stuff and this is useful to someone. Just looking at this from the perspective of an ordinary C++ programmer, it looks very alien.

View on HN

I tried pitching "generalized overloads" to Bjarne on a few occasions: `operator .` is highly problematic (you can read about it); but a number of the other `operator`s seem to be ok: `;`, `?:`, `if`, `for`, `while`, `switch-case`. Where things get challenging are: `goto-label` (just... mechanically). And, finally, do we want to overload aggregate & enumeration declaration? `typedef` declaration (this gets into name unification which is really awkward in templated contexts); function definitions, etc.). My argument was "leave that for C++14". For 90% of the code I was looking at the statement-level `operator`s solved the problems I had: it promoted the body of the functions into plain-old-template metaprogramming. Templated return types (a la Veldhuizen) converted function definitions into first class types that let me operate on functions, just like we've always done.

Thankfully I no longer work with C++, but such proposals were my main problem with the language.

I had the impression that the vast majority of us regular users just wanted quality of life improvements: better error messages, networking library, a standard package manager etc. Literally most of what C++ code styles are concerned with is about picking what features are banned in that particular style.

But instead of doing something pratical, the commitee always went with the route of adding increasingly niche features citing that useful things are "out of scope" or "implementation defined" or "userspace".

So what you get is incompatible ecosystems and cultures for an extremely complicated language.

Very happy working with Go presently, where exactly the opposite approach is being taken by maintainers. Eg: There was huge pushback regarding generics introduction (a genuinely useful language feature IMO), but they introduced very good vulnerability scanning (govulncheck) without me even hearing about it being under development.

People want better error messages, networking, a package manager, etc. But they also want compile time reflection. Sometimes it is even the same people!

Sure, I get that.

But my point is that niche (in my opinion) features seem to be getting into the standard much more often than things that are broadly useful (in my opinion).

To the contrary, these features should have been in C++ for decades, whereas standardizing networking at any point in time is a mistake because APIs and best practices for high performance networking constantly evolve ; if any kind of networking had been standardized in C++ 15 years ago, then today the only thing we could say is "don't use it" just like you mustn't use the standard network APIs of other languages if you remotely care about writing good software, just like you mustn't use std::regex or other things that were mistakenly standardized in C++.

With C++26 we're barely getting to where python was already in 2001 with the introduction of decorators or Java in 2004 with annotations. C# had these features from the very beginning (albeit at runtime, not compile-time like C++).

"The useful addition might become deprecated in a few years" is a poor excuse considering that all the time niche language features are being added which either take forever to implement, or end up getting banned in real codebases.

How is it okay that newly added language features end up unused/deprecated/discouraged, but it's a problem for libraries?

I never got to try exceptions and modules in C++.

Exceptions because every place I worked at banned them, and modules because they were not implemented by the time I left the language.

I'm 100% sure that people got (and will keep getting) much more value out of unfortunate std::regex and std::fstream than they will ever get from reflection (in the few places that will even allow using it at all).

Everywhere I worked we had our custom network stack, on top of posix or even lower level. We wouldn't replace it with something from the standard.

Everywhere I worked we also had custom ad-hoc reflection/code synthesis, usually via preprocessing. We would have replaced with a builtin solution in an heartbeat.

> all the time niche language features are being added which either take forever to implement, or end up getting banned in real codebases.

you work likely in a very specific niche as no language feature has ever been entirely banned in the places I've been to. There are hundreds of thousands of codebases happily using exceptions in C++. https://github.com/search?q=%22throw+std%3A%3Aruntime_error%... as well as any other feature you can imagine.

Yeah look at this eye watering line:

    using ret_t = first_non_void<decltype(fnc.template operator()<Elts>())...>;

Of all the C++ complexities that's not the one I would complain about. All it's doing is getting the first non-void declared return type of the operator() invocations, each specialized with the Elts template parameter. It reads basically as you'd write it in English. There's much more eye-watering stuff out there!

For me the following one is insane:

constexpr void operator>>(F fnc) const { (fnc.template operator()<Elts>(), ...); }

I think that the choice of overloading operator>> is from the blog author though, it is not from the introspection proposal.

To me it's the ^^, like in

``` void print_members(T const& obj) { [:expand(nonstatic_data_members_of(^^T)):] ```

What is this ^^?

It's the reflection operator. Reflection is supposed to be part of the yet-unreleased C++26, so it's not surprising you don't know it.

It was supposed to be only one ^ however it conflicts with Objective-C blocks, so they ended up settling on two ^^.

However many of us would have prefered reflect(T), but again many on WG21 seem to use notepad for programming and don't like to type.

It means the reflection data of the type.

> however it conflicts with Objective-C blocks, so they ended up settling on two ^^.

Which… were never added to C++, right? What a mess.

No, they are Objective-C only, and since there is this thing called Objective-C++, where one can combine Objective-C and C++ on the same source file, an alternative had to be chosen.

Personally I would rather have reflect.

> it conflicts with Objective-C blocks

Why does that matter?

> many of us would have prefered reflect(T), but again many on WG21 seem to use notepad for programming and don't like to type.

I don't know about anyone else, but I find reflect(T) much easier to type than ^^T. I have a high error rate on hitting 6. Not only that I have to move my hand from the home row to hit it.

It matters to Apple, and those on WG21 that work on Apple platforms.

Ultimetely that is how ISO driven languages work, features get decided by those willing to join the process, and vote on what features become part of the next language standard.

> Why does that matter?

https://github.com/search?q=lang%3AObjective-C%2B%2B+&type=r...

all of those would instantly break.

I develop a C++ / Qt software that also ships on macOS and some parts of the macOS API are only realistically useable from Obj-C / Obj-C++ so any C++ software that wants deeper integration with the OS there must work with Objective-C++.

Good news, c++ and brainfuck languages will soon be able to merge in a single language :-)

You're looking at constructs mostly related to C++26 reflection. It's very new, so that might be why it looks like it's from a different planet. They necessarily had to invent some new syntax for it.

I think C++26's reflection is likely to be one of the most important changes to the language in a very long time.

Did they have to invent new syntax for it? All other languages that have reflection have regular function calls for it. Why do ^^X instead of reflect(X)?

Not very many languages have compile time reflection. This is more like macros and syntax splicing.

Still a reflect keyword could have worked. Some argued that in reflection heavy code you would reflect a lot and the keyword would be a lot of noise.

I don't know if the reflection papers have been voted in already (I forgot how to check), so the syntax might still be up for debate.

According to https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2025/p29...

> The original TS landed on reflexpr(...) as the syntax to reflect source constructs and [P1240R0] adopted that syntax as well. As more examples were discussed, it became clear that that syntax was both (a) too “heavy” and (b) insufficiently distinct from a function call. SG7 eventually agreed upon the prefix ^ operator. The “upward arrow” interpretation of the caret matches the “lift” or “raise” verbs that are sometimes used to describe the reflection operation in other contexts.

It is using c++ 26 features, so of course it looks slightly alien, nobody uses it yet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com