Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Move <numeric> to the algorithms clause #1511

Closed
AlisdairM opened this issue Mar 4, 2017 · 6 comments
Closed

Move <numeric> to the algorithms clause #1511

AlisdairM opened this issue Mar 4, 2017 · 6 comments
Assignees
@jensmaurer
Labels
lwg Issue must be reviewed by LWG.

Comments

@AlisdairM
Copy link
Contributor

Especially with the addition of parallel algorithms, it is clear that the header has more in common, and more shared wording, with the algorithms clause than the numerics clause. For C++20, it would be good to move the header and relevant wording into clause 28 (Algorithms Library), and rename clause 29 from Numerics Library to Numerical Types Library.
@cubbimew
Copy link
Contributor

cubbimew commented Mar 4, 2017

+1 cppreference has always listed numeric algorithms on its algorithms page

@W-E-Brown
Copy link
Contributor

W-E-Brown commented Mar 4, 2017 via email

@W-E-Brown
Copy link
Contributor

W-E-Brown commented Mar 4, 2017 via email

@jensmaurer jensmaurer added the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Jul 21, 2017
@jensmaurer jensmaurer added lwg Issue must be reviewed by LWG. and removed decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. labels Nov 7, 2017
@zygoloid
Copy link
Member

zygoloid commented Nov 7, 2017 •
edited

We like the direction suggested: move <numeric> to the Algorithms clause, and rename the Numerics clause to something that better describes its contents. LWG feedback is requested on this direction and on what Clause 29 should be named after the move.

@AlisdairM AlisdairM mentioned this issue Apr 4, 2018
Closed
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

P1076R0 presents the planned sectioning changes and asks for feedback from LWG and CWG. See also #1919.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer self-assigned this May 28, 2018
@jensmaurer jensmaurer mentioned this issue Jul 3, 2018
Merged
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Fixed with #2243.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@jensmaurer jensmaurer

Labels
lwg Issue must be reviewed by LWG.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
5 participants
@zygoloid @AlisdairM @W-E-Brown @cubbimew @jensmaurer