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

P2752R3 Static storage for braced initializers #6322

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jul 16, 2023
Merged

P2752R3 Static storage for braced initializers #6322

merged 1 commit into from Jul 16, 2023

Conversation

jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

@jensmaurer jensmaurer added this to the post-2023-06 milestone Jun 18, 2023
@cpplearner
Copy link
Contributor

Does it make sense to bump the __cpp_initializer_lists feature-test macro?

JohelEGP
JohelEGP suggested changes Jun 18, 2023
View reviewed changes
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.

I'm using https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D2752R3.html to pre-review
(there are sufficient differences that I'll need to wait for the mailing to confirm).

source/compatibility.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member Author

Does it make sense to bump the __cpp_initializer_lists feature-test macro?

This is a pure optimization enabler; I don't think it warrants a "feature" announcement.

JohelEGP
JohelEGP approved these changes Jul 16, 2023
View reviewed changes
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.

(there are sufficient differences that I'll need to wait for the mailing to confirm).

It was actually alright.
The wording in the generated PDF looks as was proposed.
But it seems there was a change in the context
and the paper's PR wasn't rebased.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Jul 16, 2023

It seems that the paper is just presenting the status quo in a rather loose and lacunary fashion. The PR looks good. Thanks for checking!

@tkoeppe tkoeppe merged commit 64306fb into main Jul 16, 2023
4 checks passed
@jensmaurer jensmaurer deleted the motions-2023-06-cwg-9 branch November 12, 2023 21:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@JohelEGP JohelEGP JohelEGP approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
post-2023-06
4 participants
@jensmaurer @cpplearner @tkoeppe @JohelEGP