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

[futures.overview] and [futures.async] use sloppy terminology for launch bitmask #826

Closed
jwakely opened this issue Jul 12, 2016 · 0 comments
Assignees

Comments

@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Jul 12, 2016

[futures.overview] says:

The enum type launch is a bitmask type (17.5.2.1.3) with launch::async and launch::deferred denoting individual bits.

In Clause 17 [bitmask.types] defines the term "bitmask element" for values that denote individual bits. We should use that term.

[futures.async] says:

  • if policy & launch::async is non-zero [...]
  • if policy & launch::deferred is non-zero

[bitmask.types] defines terms for that, we could say "if launch::async is set in policy" and "if launch::deferred is set in policy".

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants