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

[cmp.categories.pre] Remove unused enumerators #3542

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Sep 18, 2020
Merged

[cmp.categories.pre] Remove unused enumerators #3542

merged 2 commits into from Sep 18, 2020

Conversation

CaseyCarter
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes #3541.

jensmaurer
jensmaurer approved these changes Dec 14, 2019
View reviewed changes
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.

Looks good to me. @tkoeppe?

@zygoloid
Copy link
Member

Do we still need the eq enum at all? Perhaps we could merge it into ord?

@zygoloid zygoloid added the changes requested Changes to the wording or approach have been requested and not yet applied. label Jan 14, 2020
@CaseyCarter
Copy link
Contributor Author

Do we still need the eq enum at all? Perhaps we could merge it into ord?

Yes, this is feasible: eq is only used as a constructor parameter type, and the classes with such a constructor already have a constructor that takes ord.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Jan 14, 2020

@jensmaurer: sorry, I missed that ping; I agree that a more aggressive cleanup is a nice idea.

@CaseyCarter
Copy link
Contributor Author

I've made the requested changes.

@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Jan 24, 2020

We don't really need the equal enumerator either, it's used in exactly one place and we could just use equivalent there. It might even make it clearer that equivalence is the same as equality for strong_ordering.

jwakely
jwakely approved these changes Jan 24, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@jwakely jwakely left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, though as I said in a comment, I don't see any reason to keep equal.

@CaseyCarter
Copy link
Contributor Author

We don't really need the equal enumerator either, it's used in exactly one place and we could just use equivalent there. It might even make it clearer that equivalence is the same as equality for strong_ordering.

I'd vaguely prefer to keep the equal vs. equivalent distinction to reflect "substitutability", but it's not a hill I'm willing to die on.

@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Jan 24, 2020

OK, I don't feel strongly about it either.

@CaseyCarter
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ping. Could someone please remove the changes-requested label so this is visible again?

@jensmaurer jensmaurer removed the changes requested Changes to the wording or approach have been requested and not yet applied. label Mar 15, 2020
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Done.

CaseyCarter added a commit to CaseyCarter/STL that referenced this pull request Mar 26, 2020
@CaseyCarter
<compare> Only apply [[nodiscard]] to constructors when supported
dae6af2 
Drive-by: Merge enumeration `_Compare_eq` into `_Compare_ord` consistent with cplusplus/draft#3542.
@zygoloid zygoloid merged commit 6932156 into cplusplus:master Sep 18, 2020
@CaseyCarter CaseyCarter deleted the fox3541 branch September 19, 2020 00:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@jwakely jwakely jwakely approved these changes

@jensmaurer jensmaurer jensmaurer approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[cmp.categories.pre] nonequal and nonequivalent are non-used
5 participants
@CaseyCarter @zygoloid @tkoeppe @jwakely @jensmaurer