You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
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 :) )
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.
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.
Activity
notadragon commentedon Feb 16, 2025
If no one else is preparing this PR I will, as the changes in P2900 depend upon it.
jensmaurer commentedon Feb 16, 2025
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 commentedon Feb 16, 2025
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 commentedon Feb 16, 2025
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 commentedon Feb 16, 2025
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 commentedon Feb 25, 2025
There's no core/library feature-test macro added. Was this intended? (I'll submit issues if not.)
jensmaurer commentedon Feb 25, 2025
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 commentedon Feb 25, 2025
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.