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.

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

P1452R2 On the non-uniform semantics of return-type-requirements #3066

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Aug 2, 2019

Conversation

jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Fixes #2998.

@burblebee burblebee self-assigned this Aug 2, 2019
Copy link
Contributor

@burblebee burblebee left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How should we handle this part?
Furthermore, if additional instances of the trailing-return-type production of return-type-requirement is approved for application into the Working Draft at the same meeting as this paper is approved (e.g., P1614, “The Mothership Has Landed: Adding <=> to the Library”), replace said production with -> ConvertibleTo<Type>

And how should we handle the renaming of libconcepts (P1754R1, LWG motion 11) that were added in this paper? Does it make sense to have a separate commit with this motion that renames only the added ConvertibleTo/Same to convertible_to/same_as?

@burblebee
Copy link
Contributor

@zygoloid this motion is not complete - must be completed after LWG motion 12.

@zygoloid zygoloid merged commit 87f577e into master Aug 2, 2019
@jensmaurer jensmaurer deleted the motions-2019-07-cwg-18 branch December 15, 2019 19:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[2019-07 CWG Motion 18 P1452R2 On the non-uniform semantics of return-type-requirements
3 participants