New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
P0792 function_ref: a non-owning reference to a Callable #256
Comments
Rostistlav Khlebnikov will present it to LWG. |
P0792R4 function_ref: a non-owning reference to a Callable (Vittorio Romeo) |
P0792R5 function_ref: a non-owning reference to a Callable (Vittorio Romeo) |
This was not adopted for C++20. Removing the "C++20" label. |
LWG started this review in July (catching up on the notes). https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21summer2020/P0792R5-20200731 Will continue review when author is available. |
P2265R0: Renaming P0288R7: P0792R5: 2020-12-08 Library Evolution Telecon Minutes Chair: Bryce Adelstein Lelbach Champion: Kevlin Henney Minute Taker: Ben Craig Start: 2020-12-08 10:09 Pacific Kevlin's ordered preferences for the facility in P0288 (
Note that the order Kevlin wrote in P2265 is incorrect; the above is the right version. Other options for the facility in P0288 (
What type-erased facilities use the
We also have the option of adding aliases to make We should at least have consensus that Should we name this for what it is or what it contains? If we decide to not call the move-only function wrapper in P0288 POLL: The facilities introduced in P0288 and P0792 should have
Attendance: 38 Outcome: Weak consensus in favor. Existing precedent and policy for the POLL: Type-erasing wrappers for concepts should follow the
Attendance: 36 Outcome: That has no consensus. POLL: Type-erasing wrappers should have an
Attendance: 36 Outcome: That has no consensus. Somebody from the against camp should write a paper about this (ideally proposing an alternative guideline). POLL: The facility in P0792 should be named:
Attendance: 35 Outcome: We agree that the facility in P0792 should be called That probably means we feel type erasure does not imply POLL: The facility in P0288 should be named:
Attendance: 34 Outcome: We need to make a decision for the name of P0288 ( End: 11:46 SummaryWe had a lively discussion with excellent turnout on naming, focused on the facilities in P0288 (
It is not clear whether we have consensus on the answers to any of these questions. One of the underlying challenges is this discussion is different views regarding what kind and degree of consistency do we desire for the names of these facilities and future facilities like them. Some wish for these facilities to be named and thought of as wrappers for the concepts they hold. Others wish for names that reflect pre-concept existing practice and precedent, such as Some expressed concerns about possible confusion caused by the name We also briefly discussed the possibility of introducing type aliases for OutcomeMost of us seem to believe that, at the very least, the facilities in P0288 ( We need to make a decision for the name of P0288 ( Other type-erased facilities using |
LWG reviewed this in Kona 2022 and requested changes. |
LWG reviewed P0792R13 today. Poll: Forward P0792R13 for C++26, at some future plenary.
|
P0792R12 function_ref: a non-owning reference to a Callable (Vittorio Romeo, Zhihao Yuan, Jarrad Waterloo) |
P0792R13 function_ref: a non-owning reference to a Callable (Vittorio Romeo, Zhihao Yuan, Jarrad Waterloo) |
P0792R14 function_ref: a non-owning reference to a Callable (Vittorio Romeo, Zhihao Yuan, Jarrad Waterloo) |
Approved in Varna 2023 and applied to the draft (cplusplus/draft#6304) |
P0792R3 function_ref: a non-owning reference to a Callable (Vittorio Romeo)
https://issues.isocpp.org/show_bug.cgi?id=340
Titus Winters 2018-03-17 11:19:18 UTC
Discussed in http://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21jacksonville2018/P0792
Forward paper as-is to LWG for C++20?
SF F N A SA
3 9 3 0 0
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: