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

LWG Poll 3: P2236R0 Standard Library Ready and Tentatively Ready issues #4380

Merged
merged 51 commits into from Dec 14, 2020
Merged

LWG Poll 3: P2236R0 Standard Library Ready and Tentatively Ready issues #4380

merged 51 commits into from Dec 14, 2020

Conversation

burblebee
Copy link
Contributor

@burblebee burblebee commented Nov 18, 2020 •
edited by jensmaurer

Fixes #4327
Fixes #3997
Fixes cplusplus/papers#936

Questions/comments on wording:

  • LWG2820 Should the xrefs be after the new paragraphs?
  • LWG3419 FYI, the referenced wording was changed by e5455e3 to replace 'may', addressing ISO/CS 017 (C++20 DIS).
  • LWG3265 Fixed by LWG3435.

Could not apply due to wording conflicts:

  • LWG3368 Conflicts with wording changed by P2091R0.

Could not apply because wording is for a TS:

  • LWG3414 [networking.ts] service_already_exists has no usable constructors
  • Note, LWG3443 and LWG3413 apply to TSes also but were explicitly excluded in the motion.

@timsong-cpp
Copy link
Contributor

  • LWG3036 Compatibility section wording required a rewrite.
  • LWG3170 Compatibility section wording required a rewrite.

These two issues want to deprecate, not remove, which is why the wording is for Annex D, not Annex C.

@timsong-cpp
Copy link
Contributor

The note in 3435's PR indicates that it supersedes 3265.

@burblebee
Copy link
Contributor Author

These two issues want to deprecate, not remove, which is why the wording is for Annex D, not Annex C.

Ah! I misunderstood the intent - will fix. Thanks!!

@burblebee burblebee marked this pull request as draft November 18, 2020 03:12
@burblebee burblebee force-pushed the motions-2020-11-lwg-3 branch 2 times, most recently from ed824d0 to b055d05 Compare November 18, 2020 05:49
@burblebee burblebee marked this pull request as ready for review November 18, 2020 05:56
@jwakely jwakely changed the title LWG Poll 3: 2236R0 Standard Libbrary Ready and Tentatively Ready issues LWG Poll 3: P2236R0 Standard Library Ready and Tentatively Ready issues Nov 18, 2020
jwakely
jwakely requested changes Nov 18, 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.

Wow, the changes to ranges.tex were tough to review, they must have been even tougher to write!

source/future.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/iostreams.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/support.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/support.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/iterators.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/iterators.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/ranges.tex Show resolved Hide resolved
source/ranges.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/ranges.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/ranges.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Nov 18, 2020 •
edited

Fixes #4327

Questions/comments on wording:

* LWG2820 Should the xrefs be _after_ the new paragraphs?

No, I don't think so.

LWG3419 FYI, the referenced wording was changed by e5455e3 to replace 'may', addressing ISO/CS 017 (C++20 DIS).

I think your change to use the LWG3419 wording is right, thanks.

LWG3265 Fixed by LWG3435.

Yes, I think 3265 should not have been in the motions.

Could not apply due to wording conflicts:

* LWG3368 Conflicts with wording changed by P2091R0.

It doesn't conflict, the edits are the same, largely. P2091R0 says "Note that these specifications supersede the proposed resolution of LWG-3258 and include the proposed resolution of LWG-3368" (at the top of page 3). I think the status of 3368 should have been changed to "Resolved" after Prague, and so should not have been in the motions.

Could not apply because wording is for a TS:

* LWG3414 [networking.ts] service_already_exists has no usable constructors

Sorry about that, I did point it out soon after the plenary: https://lists.isocpp.org/edit/2020/11/0570.php

I've already made the change to the TS sources.

JohelEGP
JohelEGP reviewed Nov 18, 2020
View reviewed changes
source/threads.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
CaseyCarter
CaseyCarter approved these changes Nov 18, 2020
View reviewed changes
source/support.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/ranges.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
JohelEGP
JohelEGP reviewed Nov 18, 2020
View reviewed changes
source/ranges.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
JohelEGP
JohelEGP reviewed Nov 18, 2020
View reviewed changes
source/ranges.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
jwakely
jwakely approved these changes Nov 19, 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.

N.B. the commit message says "cluase"

jwakely
jwakely approved these changes Nov 19, 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.

I'd like Casey's suggestion for "same non-null value" in coroutine_handle. That wasn't in the approved wording so as far as applying the motion goes, this looks good.

JohelEGP
JohelEGP reviewed Nov 19, 2020
View reviewed changes
source/ranges.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@jensmaurer jensmaurer added this to the post-2020-11 milestone Nov 24, 2020
@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Dec 2, 2020

@jwakely: I'm happy to take Casey's "non-null" suggestion editorially, I'll include it in the commit message.

@tkoeppe tkoeppe force-pushed the motions-2020-11-lwg-3 branch 3 times, most recently from 866f1c6 to ae26a5e Compare December 14, 2020 01:23
@burblebee @tkoeppe
LWG3434 ios_base never reclaims memory for iarray and parray
bef7b41
@burblebee @tkoeppe
LWG3437 __cpp_lib_polymorphic_allocator is in the wrong header
fd5c645
@burblebee @tkoeppe
LWG3446 indirectly_readable_traits ambiguity for types with both valu…
596049e 
…e_type and element_type
@burblebee @tkoeppe
LWG3448 transform_view's sentinel<false> not comparable with iterator…
5ea4ce4 
…<true>
@burblebee @tkoeppe
[ranges] Replace "using Base" declarations as requested in LWG3448
c8e7ca4 
This replaces occurrences of "using Base = conditional_t<Const, const V, V>;"
with "using Base = maybe-const<Const, V>;"
@burblebee @tkoeppe
LWG3449 take_view and take_while_view's sentinel<false> not comparabl…
a784850 
…e with their const iterator
@burblebee @tkoeppe
LWG3453 Generic code cannot call ranges::advance(i, s)
be8cc6b
@burblebee @tkoeppe
LWG3455 Incorrect Postconditions on unique_ptr move assignment
c30374c
@burblebee @tkoeppe
LWG3460 Unimplementable noop_coroutine_handle guarantees
0194113 
For clarification, "returns the same value" was augmented to "returns
the same non-null value", on suggestion of and with review by LWG
members.
@burblebee @tkoeppe
LWG3461 convertible_to's description mishandles cv-qualified void
299f372
@burblebee @tkoeppe
LWG3465 compare_partial_order_fallback requires F < E
308ae94
@burblebee @tkoeppe
LWG3466 Specify the requirements for promise/future/shared_future con…
6605484 
…sistently
@burblebee @tkoeppe
LWG3467 bool can't be an integer-like type
01f3fd7
@burblebee @tkoeppe
LWG3472 counted_iterator is missing preconditions
ebdea19 
[iterators.counted] Add "is true" for expressions in preconditions.
@burblebee @tkoeppe
LWG3473 Normative encouragement in non-normative note
5696c0b
@burblebee @tkoeppe
LWG3474 Nesting join_views is broken because of CTAD
0307edc
@burblebee @tkoeppe
LWG3476 thread and jthread constructors require that the parameters b…
6b3c8a8 
…e move-constructible but never move construct the parameters
@burblebee @tkoeppe
LWG3477 Simplify constraints for semiregular-box
245c910
@burblebee @tkoeppe
LWG3482 drop_view's const begin should additionally require sized_range
518ac8a
@burblebee @tkoeppe
LWG3483 transform_view::iterator's difference is overconstrained
ba02b31
@tkoeppe tkoeppe force-pushed the motions-2020-11-lwg-3 branch 2 times, most recently from eaadc30 to ba02b31 Compare December 14, 2020 01:32
@tkoeppe tkoeppe merged commit ee5b56a into master Dec 14, 2020
mkurdej added a commit to llvm/llvm-project that referenced this pull request Mar 1, 2021
@mkurdej
[libc++] [docs] [C++2b] Update status page with issues (and forgotten…
11ef785 
… papers) adopted in November 2020 and February 2021 virtual meetings.

Sources:
* cplusplus/draft#4380 (November 2020)
* cplusplus/draft#4523 (February 2021)
* https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/issues?q=is%3Aissue+LWG+Motion
morehouse pushed a commit to morehouse/llvm-project that referenced this pull request Mar 4, 2021
@mkurdej @morehouse
[libc++] [docs] [C++2b] Update status page with issues (and forgotten…
374532c 
… papers) adopted in November 2020 and February 2021 virtual meetings.

Sources:
* cplusplus/draft#4380 (November 2020)
* cplusplus/draft#4523 (February 2021)
* https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/issues?q=is%3Aissue+LWG+Motion
@jensmaurer jensmaurer deleted the motions-2020-11-lwg-3 branch June 14, 2021 21:26
CharlesHe023 pushed a commit to CharlesHe023/libcxx that referenced this pull request Aug 23, 2021
@mkurdej
[libc++] [docs] [C++2b] Update status page with issues (and forgotten…
5905b74 
… papers) adopted in November 2020 and February 2021 virtual meetings.

Sources:
* cplusplus/draft#4380 (November 2020)
* cplusplus/draft#4523 (February 2021)
* https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/issues?q=is%3Aissue+LWG+Motion
GitOrigin-RevId: 11ef785cdd0299a719632ef8fbc34f54f3db0674
arichardson pushed a commit to CTSRD-CHERI/libcxx that referenced this pull request Sep 24, 2021
@mkurdej @arichardson
[libc++] [docs] [C++2b] Update status page with issues (and forgotten…
0a979eb 
… papers) adopted in November 2020 and February 2021 virtual meetings.

Sources:
* cplusplus/draft#4380 (November 2020)
* cplusplus/draft#4523 (February 2021)
* https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/issues?q=is%3Aissue+LWG+Motion
conr2d pushed a commit to haderech/libcxx that referenced this pull request Oct 23, 2021
@mkurdej
[libc++] [docs] [C++2b] Update status page with issues (and forgotten…
c0b48c0 
… papers) adopted in November 2020 and February 2021 virtual meetings.

Sources:
* cplusplus/draft#4380 (November 2020)
* cplusplus/draft#4523 (February 2021)
* https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/issues?q=is%3Aissue+LWG+Motion
mem-frob pushed a commit to draperlaboratory/hope-llvm-project that referenced this pull request Oct 7, 2022
@mkurdej
[libc++] [docs] [C++2b] Update status page with issues (and forgotten…
ebc71b3 
… papers) adopted in November 2020 and February 2021 virtual meetings.

Sources:
* cplusplus/draft#4380 (November 2020)
* cplusplus/draft#4523 (February 2021)
* https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/issues?q=is%3Aissue+LWG+Motion
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@tkoeppe tkoeppe tkoeppe left review comments

@JohelEGP JohelEGP JohelEGP left review comments

@CaseyCarter CaseyCarter CaseyCarter approved these changes

@jwakely jwakely jwakely approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
post-2020-11
7 participants
@burblebee @timsong-cpp @jwakely @tkoeppe @CaseyCarter @JohelEGP @jensmaurer