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.

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

[LWG motion 27] P2548R6 copyable_function #6342

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Jul 21, 2023
Merged

Conversation

burblebee
Copy link
Contributor

@burblebee burblebee commented Jun 22, 2023

@burblebee burblebee marked this pull request as ready for review June 22, 2023 22:53
@frederick-vs-ja
Copy link
Contributor

This also fixes cplusplus/papers#1275.

source/utilities.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/utilities.tex Show resolved Hide resolved
source/utilities.tex Show resolved Hide resolved
source/utilities.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/utilities.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@jensmaurer jensmaurer added this to the post-2023-06 milestone Jun 27, 2023
@burblebee
Copy link
Contributor Author

Builds are failing during OS installs; how to fix?

\tcode{function}, \tcode{copyable_function}, or \tcode{move_only_function},
such that the target object \tcode{x} of \tcode{t} has a type that
is a specialization of
\tcode{function}, \tcode{copyable_function}, or \tcode{move_only_function}.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Does function_ref need to be mentioned here (@CaseyCarter, @MFHava)?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As the intention was that there should be no double wrapping for "polymorphic function wrappers", I think function_ref should be mentioned here too.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Such a change feels non-editorial to me.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we open an LWG issue?

@tkoeppe tkoeppe merged commit cd6517f into main Jul 21, 2023
4 checks passed
@jensmaurer jensmaurer deleted the motions-2023-06-lwg-27 branch November 12, 2023 21:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[2023-06 LWG Motion 27] P2548R6 copyable_function P2548 R6 copyable_function
6 participants