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

[lib] Review organization of standard library clauses #3349

Closed
jensmaurer opened this issue Oct 29, 2019 · 5 comments
Closed

[lib] Review organization of standard library clauses #3349

jensmaurer opened this issue Oct 29, 2019 · 5 comments
Projects
C++23 clause renumbering
Milestone
C++23

Comments

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

From NB US 325 (C++20 CD) cplusplus/nbballot#321:

The contents of the header <bit> relate to inspecting and manipulating memory patterns directly, rather than numeric operations. It better belongs under clause 20, general utilities.

Proposed change:
Move 26.5 [bit] to a new subsection under class 20 [utilities]

Other concerns: pair, tuple, variant, optional, any, bitset should be extracted into their own top-level clause "Utility types" or similar (48 pages).
[rand] is unrelated to real-number calculations and thus should not be under [numerics].
@jensmaurer jensmaurer added this to the C++23 milestone Oct 29, 2019
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member Author

See also #3388.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member Author

jensmaurer commented Nov 10, 2019 •
edited

Ideas from Belfast:

  • Put [atomics] under [threads] (it fits the theme rather well).
  • Maybe put all of locale, regex. std::format under I/O-ish (because locale-using)

@ben-craig
Copy link

The editors might want to spend some spare brain cycles on editorial strategies for dealing with the combination of standard library headers and standard library modules, particularly if something like P0581 goes through.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member Author

@ben-craig , thanks for the heads-up. From a cursory look at P0581, it appears we should get away with a small amount of added text for these std modules, so we might get away with a subclause in the lib intro part, or with a short mention whenever we show a header synopsis.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer mentioned this issue Nov 23, 2021
Closed
8 tasks
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member Author

Copied the remaining items to #5315

C++23 clause renumbering automation moved this from Open to Done Feb 23, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
C++23 clause renumbering
  
Done
Milestone
C++23
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@ben-craig @jensmaurer