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

[expected.object.general] Remove explicit(see below) for expected copy/move constructor #5380

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 3, 2022
Merged

[expected.object.general] Remove explicit(see below) for expected copy/move constructor #5380

merged 1 commit into from May 3, 2022

Conversation

hewillk
Copy link
Contributor

@hewillk hewillk commented Apr 1, 2022

No description provided.

jensmaurer
jensmaurer approved these changes Apr 1, 2022
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.

These are mistakes in the plenary-approved paper http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p0323r12.html#expected.expected

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

@jwakely , any concerns?

@JohelEGP JohelEGP mentioned this pull request Apr 29, 2022
Closed
@JohelEGP
Copy link
Contributor

The commit message is missing the reference to expected.void.general, like #5424.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

@CaseyCarter , @jwakely, any concerns about this one?

@CaseyCarter
Copy link
Contributor

CaseyCarter commented May 3, 2022 •
edited

This is exactly the change that #5424 made, so I'm happy with it. (That is, please make the recommended change to the commit message and merge.)

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

@jwakely , I'd appreciate your approval here.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer merged commit eed5115 into cplusplus:main May 3, 2022
@hewillk hewillk deleted the main2 branch May 6, 2022 13:03
@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Sep 5, 2022 •
edited

I think these were misplaced in the synopses, they should have been on these constructors instead:

template<class G>
  constexpr expected(const unexpected<G>&);
template<class G>
  constexpr expected(unexpected<G>&&);

See LWG 3754 which wants to add them to those constructors.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@CaseyCarter CaseyCarter CaseyCarter approved these changes

@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.

None yet
5 participants
@hewillk @jensmaurer @JohelEGP @CaseyCarter @jwakely