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

[memory.syn] LWG 3303: ExecutionPolicy overloads of destroy/destroy_n shoudn't be constexpr #3181

Closed
frederick-vs-ja opened this issue Aug 17, 2019 · 5 comments
Closed

[memory.syn] LWG 3303: ExecutionPolicy overloads of destroy/destroy_n shoudn't be constexpr #3181

frederick-vs-ja opened this issue Aug 17, 2019 · 5 comments
Labels
lwg Issue must be reviewed by LWG. not-editorial Issue is not deemed editorial; the editorial issue is kept open for tracking.

Comments

@frederick-vs-ja
Copy link
Contributor

It would be better to be consistent with other algorithms.
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

This sounds like an LWG issue, not an editorial one.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer added the lwg Issue must be reviewed by LWG. label Aug 18, 2019
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Submitted to lwgchair.

@zygoloid
Copy link
Member

(For future reference, these functions were added by P0784R7, which specifies that they are constexpr.)

@Dani-Hub
Copy link
Member

A corresponding LWG issue has been created: LWG 3303

@jensmaurer jensmaurer changed the title [memory.syn] ExecutionPolicy overloads of destroy/destroy_n shoudn't be constexpr [memory.syn] LWG 3303: ExecutionPolicy overloads of destroy/destroy_n shoudn't be constexpr Oct 12, 2019
@jensmaurer jensmaurer added the not-editorial Issue is not deemed editorial; the editorial issue is kept open for tracking. label Oct 12, 2019
@AlisdairM
Copy link
Contributor

AlisdairM commented Mar 7, 2020 •
edited by jensmaurer

Resolved by P2051R0 C++ Library Issues to be moved in Prague (Marshall Clow) cplusplus/papers#781 in Prague

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
lwg Issue must be reviewed by LWG. not-editorial Issue is not deemed editorial; the editorial issue is kept open for tracking.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
5 participants
@zygoloid @Dani-Hub @AlisdairM @frederick-vs-ja @jensmaurer