Skip to content

[LWG 2] P2789R0 Ready and Tentatively Ready issues #6124

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

Merged
merged 32 commits into from
Mar 7, 2023
Merged

Conversation

burblebee
Copy link
Contributor

@burblebee burblebee commented Feb 15, 2023

@burblebee burblebee marked this pull request as ready for review February 15, 2023 20:14
@burblebee burblebee force-pushed the motions-2023-02-lwg-2 branch from 2b6b20e to 3c99eb3 Compare February 15, 2023 20:14
@jensmaurer jensmaurer added this to the post-2023-02 milestone Feb 16, 2023
\begin{itemdescr}
\pnum
\effects
Equivalent to: \tcode{ranges::iter_swap(*x.\exposid{parent_}->\exposid{current_}, *y.\exposid{parent_}->\exposid{current_});}
Copy link
Contributor

@JohelEGP JohelEGP Feb 18, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
Equivalent to: \tcode{ranges::iter_swap(*x.\exposid{parent_}->\exposid{current_}, *y.\exposid{parent_}->\exposid{current_});}
Equivalent to \tcode{ranges::iter_swap(*x.\exposid{parent_}->\exposid{current_}, *y.\exposid{parent_}->\exposid{current_})}.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actually no; when we introduce code with "Equivalent to:" (note the trailing ":"), the code is supposed to be complete, as if in a codeblock that could be substituted. Your suggestion would apply if the code had been introduced using "Equivalent to", the idea being that later reads as a statement. That said, if this should be an expression and not a statement, then the ";" should be removed. Alternatively, we could use your suggestion and introduce it with "Equivalent to". What do you prefer?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah, yes. Again, I forgot to remove the colon, too. Edited.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm fine leaving it as proposed. We could make the change, but we don't have to, and that way we retain some symmetry between the two instances.

@burblebee burblebee requested a review from JohelEGP February 21, 2023 23:00
@tkoeppe tkoeppe force-pushed the motions-2023-02-lwg-2 branch from f7595dc to 211ee2d Compare March 5, 2023 22:44
burblebee added 18 commits March 7, 2023 01:12
…r-like

The new overload is also marked as "freestanding", which was not part
of the proposed issue resolution but matches the surrounding
interface.

Also inserts an Oxford comma in [pair.pair].
@tkoeppe tkoeppe force-pushed the motions-2023-02-lwg-2 branch from 211ee2d to a47bdd7 Compare March 7, 2023 01:13
@tkoeppe tkoeppe merged commit be2a5d2 into main Mar 7, 2023
@tkoeppe tkoeppe deleted the motions-2023-02-lwg-2 branch May 10, 2023 17:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
4 participants