Skip to content

[2025-02 CWG Motion 4] P1494R5 Partial program correctness #7654

Closed
@jensmaurer

Description

@jensmaurer
Member

P1494R5 (Partial program correctness)

Activity

added this to the post-2025-02 milestone on Feb 15, 2025
notadragon

notadragon commented on Feb 16, 2025

@notadragon
Contributor

If no one else is preparing this PR I will, as the changes in P2900 depend upon it.

self-assigned this
on Feb 16, 2025
jensmaurer

jensmaurer commented on Feb 16, 2025

@jensmaurer
MemberAuthor

I don't think P2900 merge-conflict-depends on the wording changes here; it's just that P2900 likes to use some words introduced here.

notadragon

notadragon commented on Feb 16, 2025

@notadragon
Contributor

no we also have edits to the new paragraph introduced in intro.abstract about observable checkpoints. I have almost completed a PR for P1494 (and I think it's good practice for me to start with a small paper first :) )

jensmaurer

jensmaurer commented on Feb 16, 2025

@jensmaurer
MemberAuthor

Reassigned.

Maybe you want to base the pull request of P2900 on the one for this paper here, then, instead of on the "main" branch.

notadragon

notadragon commented on Feb 16, 2025

@notadragon
Contributor

Other than how to specify a reference into the C standard, I have the PR ready for P1494. I think we will be able to get that reviewed before i finish the full PR for P2900.

frederick-vs-ja

frederick-vs-ja commented on Feb 25, 2025

@frederick-vs-ja
Contributor

There's no core/library feature-test macro added. Was this intended? (I'll submit issues if not.)

jensmaurer

jensmaurer commented on Feb 25, 2025

@jensmaurer
MemberAuthor

I don't think we need a core feature-test macro. This doesn't add a feature, it constrains implementations around undefined behavior.

Whether LEWG wants to have one for std::observable, I don't know.

notadragon

notadragon commented on Feb 25, 2025

@notadragon
Contributor

I've been informed that LWG didn't discuss it directly but that the LWG chair indicated that he thought this was too obscure and it wasn't worth the bother to add a feature-test macro. CWG did discuss it and, as Jens said, they didn't want one.

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

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

No labels
No labels

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

Relationships

None yet

    Development

    Participants

    @frederick-vs-ja@jensmaurer@notadragon

    Issue actions

      [2025-02 CWG Motion 4] P1494R5 Partial program correctness · Issue #7654 · cplusplus/draft