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
I don't see this as being a bugfix for C++20 features - the only timeline/features discussed are C++14-era. Much as I'd love to see this happen, I don't think it meets the criteria for C++20-focus.
That said, it's also an LWG matter as far as I'm concerned. I'm dropping the LEWG tag, and recommend dropping the C++20 tag, but defer to Marshall.
We took a vote and it fell extremely close to the consensus/no consensus
line. And then we took a break for 15 minutes, after which Bryce resumed
discussions after pointing out that, if not for the neutral votes, we would
have consensus. After a short additional discussion, we re-voted, which
did indeed reduce the number of neutral votes. Unfortunately for P1715, it
wasn't enough, and the paper once again narrowly missed getting consensus.
Re: getting new information... I don't remember who it was who thought I
was wrong about std::remove_cvref_t, but they were correct and I was indeed
wrong... my opinion was partly based on clang & libc++, but in this case,
libstdc++ has a much better implementation of std::remove_cvref_t, if by
better you mean "smaller AST". See https://godbolt.org/z/aoGorjzWY
The real problem was that I was misremembering the problem from four years
ago. It's not that remove_cvref must be implemented in terms of
remove_reference and remove_cv.... it's that remove_reference_t<T> and
remove_cv_t<T> and remove_cvref_t<T> must each involve the instantiation of
a *different* class. Whereas with the added flexibility of P1715, these
*could* each involve the instantiation of the *same* shared class.
See https://godbolt.org/z/PEc51Tc1K for a rough sketch of how this would
work, and how much AST size it saves, when compared to the base libc++.
And I'll look into what libstdc++ is doing now, that saves so much AST
space...
Activity
tituswinters commentedon Jul 5, 2019
I don't see this as being a bugfix for C++20 features - the only timeline/features discussed are C++14-era. Much as I'd love to see this happen, I don't think it meets the criteria for C++20-focus.
That said, it's also an LWG matter as far as I'm concerned. I'm dropping the LEWG tag, and recommend dropping the C++20 tag, but defer to Marshall.
jorgbrown commentedon Jul 17, 2019
The paper that was mailed, pre-Cologne, is http://wg21.link/p1715r0
The reflectors reported a problem with that version, regarding function template argument deduction. This is corrected in http://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21cologne2019/LibraryWorkingGroup/D1715r1.html
mclow commentedon Nov 3, 2019
This was not adopted for C++20. Removing the "C++20" label.
38 remaining items
JeffGarland commentedon Feb 7, 2023
@brycelelbach @billy-baker
I think there's something off in the notes here -- looks like copy-pasta w.r.t the 23/26 votes -- same poll two different outcomes?
brycelelbach commentedon Feb 7, 2023
No, the polls are right. We took it once then learned new information afterwards.
jorgbrown commentedon Feb 7, 2023