You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
[2018-06 LWG Motion 28] P0898R3 Standard library concepts #2145
We should get the LaTeX sources from @CaseyCarter. I'd very much like to have an authoritative source for the stable labels that are used throughout the new wording.
I plan to cleanup my latex sources and prepare the PR for P0898. Could someone please assign this issue to me so there's no confusion among the editors?
@timsong-cpp has pointed out to me that [meta.trans.other]/3.2:
[let] XREF(A) denote a unary class template T such that T<U> denotes the same type as U with the addition of A’s cv and reference qualifiers, for a type U such that is_same_v<U, remove_cvref_t<U>> is true
isn't possibly implementable with a class template, and that it should rather read "unary alias template". I'll file an issue to make this change after the merge.
By the strictest possible interpretation it is not editorial. It is certainly a borderline case: I would have made the change in the proposal had it been brought to my attention before the 20:00 deadline for the strawpolls page. I don't know where we draw the line for changes we consider to be "editorial-ish-enough" when incorporating motions, so I plan to precisely walk the line absent any direction otherwise from more experienced editors.
Hmm, where in CopyConstructible do we say that the construction must not change v?
This axiom used to be implicit via the "const operands are not modified by default" wording when CopyConstructible was defined in terms of required expressions; it was lost when we reformulated in terms of is_constructible. I need to open an issue to fix this as well.
Activity
tkoeppe commentedon Jun 9, 2018
We should get the LaTeX sources from @CaseyCarter. I'd very much like to have an authoritative source for the stable labels that are used throughout the new wording.
jensmaurer commentedon Jun 9, 2018
We still have to double-check the labels as per our current policy.
CaseyCarter commentedon Jun 9, 2018
I plan to cleanup my latex sources and prepare the PR for P0898. Could someone please assign this issue to me so there's no confusion among the editors?
jensmaurer commentedon Jun 9, 2018
Apparently, you can't assign to foreign people :-(
Assigning to myself to mark it as "taken" in the interim.
zygoloid commentedon Jun 9, 2018
I've reconfigured GitHub so all editors can be assigned issues on this repository.
CaseyCarter commentedon Jun 11, 2018
@timsong-cpp has pointed out to me that [meta.trans.other]/3.2:
isn't possibly implementable with a class template, and that it should rather read "unary alias template". I'll file an issue to make this change after the merge.
tkoeppe commentedon Jun 11, 2018
@CaseyCarter: is that editorial? If so, we could just tack that onto the motion application. Otherwise we'll wait for the LWG issue.
CaseyCarter commentedon Jun 11, 2018
By the strictest possible interpretation it is not editorial. It is certainly a borderline case: I would have made the change in the proposal had it been brought to my attention before the 20:00 deadline for the strawpolls page. I don't know where we draw the line for changes we consider to be "editorial-ish-enough" when incorporating motions, so I plan to precisely walk the line absent any direction otherwise from more experienced editors.
tkoeppe commentedon Jun 11, 2018
@mclow: Maybe the LWG chair could weigh in on this border line?
mclow commentedon Jun 11, 2018
I think we should err on the side of caution here - and open an issue.
CaseyCarter commentedon Jun 18, 2018
@timsong-cpp again:
This axiom used to be implicit via the "
constoperands are not modified by default" wording whenCopyConstructiblewas defined in terms of required expressions; it was lost when we reformulated in terms ofis_constructible. I need to open an issue to fix this as well.CaseyCarter commentedon Jul 11, 2018
This is LWG 3140.
This is LWG 3141