[meta.trans.other] Consider referencing p2 from the aligned_storage and aligned_union rows in Table 50 #1757
Comments
|
It's not clear to me that "It is implementation-defined whether any extended alignment is supported (6.11)." applies to aligned_union at all. There is no way to pass a "size_t Align" to aligned_union, and the normative statement is immediately after the example about aligned_storage. For "aligned_union", the phrasing ought to be "It is implementation-defined whether a type with an extended alignment is supported." @jwakely : What's your view? |
jensmaurer
added
the
decision-required
|
Editorial meeting consensus: Turn p2 sentence into a note with xref to 6.11 (where the general normative statement resides), applying to both aligned_storage and aligned_union. Also add both places to impldef index (same entry). |
jensmaurer
removed
the
decision-required
|
See LWG 3016. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
In this case, we have a single-line normative paragraph, buried between a non-normative note and two lengthy paragraphs dealing with
common_type, that adds a requirement toaligned_{storage,union}, without any hint in Table 50 that the specification of those templates in the table is incomplete. This seems suboptimal.I'd suggest adding a cross reference in the table (make it "Note X"?). Or perhaps it'd be simpler to just add the sentence to the two rows it applies to?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: