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

P1907R1 Inconsistencies with non-type template parameters #3441

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Nov 20, 2019

Conversation

zygoloid
Copy link
Member

@zygoloid zygoloid commented Nov 13, 2019

Fixes #3401.

Also fixes NB US 092, US 093, US 100, US 102, US 114 (C++20 CD).

Fixes cplusplus/nbballot#91
Fixes cplusplus/nbballot#92
Fixes cplusplus/nbballot#99
Fixes cplusplus/nbballot#101
Fixes cplusplus/nbballot#113

Fixes cplusplus/papers#653

@zygoloid zygoloid added this to the post-2019-11 milestone Nov 13, 2019
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

jensmaurer commented Nov 13, 2019

Augmented the initial comment of this pull request (not the commit message itself) to link and auto-close the respective NB comment issues.

Copy link
Contributor

@JohelEGP JohelEGP left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The first list may need indentation. The other two use a novel style.

source/templates.tex Show resolved Hide resolved
source/templates.tex Show resolved Hide resolved
source/templates.tex Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@jensmaurer jensmaurer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please increase the feature-test macro __cpp_nontype_template_args .

@jensmaurer jensmaurer added the changes requested Changes to the wording or approach have been requested and not yet applied. label Nov 13, 2019
@zygoloid
Copy link
Member Author

Please increase the feature-test macro __cpp_nontype_template_args.

We absolutely should bump some feature-test macro here, but that is neither requested by the wording paper nor an editorial change. (Also, is that the right one? Should we bump __cpp_nontype_template_parameter_class instead? Or maybe both?) If SG10 and CWG are happy, I think I could be OK with making the change editorially anyway, but it seems like a stretch.

I've started a thread on the relevant reflectors.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

We're also editorially bumping __cplusplus, so bumping a feature-test macro seems similarly editorial to me. Having SG10 and CWG buy-in is good, though.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

So, the actual changes are good, but I continue to believe we should bump a feature-test macro. I agree that removing one (as suggested on the reflector) is a bit beyond editorial.

@zygoloid zygoloid removed the changes requested Changes to the wording or approach have been requested and not yet applied. label Nov 16, 2019
@zygoloid
Copy link
Member Author

@brevzin Can you take a look and confirm you consider the feature test macro changes to be acceptable as an editorial change?

@brevzin
Copy link
Contributor

brevzin commented Nov 16, 2019

@zygoloid Yep. There were no objections on either list. Looks good to me.

Moved definition of "structural type" next to its only use.
Removed unused name T for type of an enumeration value in definition of
template-argument-equivalent.

Also fixes NB US 092, US 093, US 100, US 102, US 114 (C++20 CD).
for P1907R1, and remove __cpp_nontype_template_parameter_class to
indicate that the feature added by P0732R2 is no longer present in that
form.
@zygoloid zygoloid merged commit b713e88 into master Nov 20, 2019
@jensmaurer jensmaurer deleted the motions-2019-11-cwg-8 branch February 18, 2020 20:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment