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
P2214 A Plan for C++23 Ranges #928
Comments
P2214R0: A Plan for C++23 Ranges 2020-10-27 Library Evolution Telecon Minutes Chair: Bryce Adelstein Lelbach Champion: Barry Revzin Minute Taker: Ben Craig Start: 2020-10-27 10:10 Pacific Does this proposal have:
Naming for "two at a time" zip algorithms needs to be considered:
Naming for "fold" needs to be considered. Should we have a form of "fold" which does not take an initial value and requires a non-empty range? How did you determine which features were most fundamental? Can you provide data that backs your categorization up? Should we expose the ranges pipeline mechanism to users, so that they could write some of these things themselves? Should we prioritize allowing users to define pipeable things that compose with ranges? Two key questions:
POLL: Prioritize exposing a mechanism that allows users to write range adapters that compose with standard range facilities over other ranges work.
Attendance: 26 # of Authors: 3 Author Position: 3x WF Outcome: That has consensus in favor. WA: I think POLL: Tier 1 of P2214R0 (A Plan for C++23 Ranges) is a reasonable set of ranges work to prioritize relative to the Tier 2 and Tier 3 ranges work.
Attendance: 26 # of Authors: 3 Author Position: 3x SF Outcome: That has strong consensus in favor. POLL: Tier 1 of P2214R0 (A Plan for C++23 Ranges) should be treated as a priority for C++23 (P0592 bucket 1 item), prioritized over other improvements to existing features (P0592 bucket 2 items) and new features (P0592 bucket 3 items).
Attendance: 26 # of Authors: 3 Author Position: SF, WF, N Outcome: That has consensus against. POLL: Tier 1 of P2214R0 (A Plan for C++23 Ranges) should be treated as improvements to an existing feature (P0592 bucket 2 item), prioritized over new features (P0592 bucket 3 items).
Attendance: 26 # of Authors: 3 Author Position: 2x SF, WF Outcome: That has consensus in favor. WA: I think the most important feature is the ability for users to interoperate with what we already have; once this has that, I may feel differently. We will classify Tier 1 of P2214R0 as a bucket 2 item. We should consider reactivating the Ranges Study Group. End: 11:38 SummaryWe discussed P2214R0, which describes a variety of ranges work, inspired by Ranges V3, that we should pursue to build on top of C++20 ranges. The paper classifies the work into three tiers; the Tier 1 group is suggested as priorities for C++23. There was some technical discussion about specific features (such as OutcomeRevise P2214R0 (A Plan for C++23 Ranges), adding a mechanism for users to write range adapters as (at least) a Tier 1 item. Work on Tier 1 features will be considered as improvements to an existing feature (P0592 bucket 2 item). |
P2214R1 A Plan for C++23 Ranges (Barry Revzin, Conor Hoekstra, Tim Song) |
P2214R2 A Plan for C++23 Ranges (Barry Revzin, Conor Hoekstra, Tim Song) |
P2214R0 A Plan for C++23 Ranges (Barry Revzin, Conor Hoekstra, Tim Song)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: