Skip to content

[execpol.type] Drop "see below" from is_execution_policy #7909

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 19, 2025

Conversation

frederick-vs-ja
Copy link
Contributor

In order to make is_execution_policy satisfity the requirements, an implementation should determine the base class (which is either true_type or false_type) for each specialization, but not add things into the {}.

This PR makes the intent clearer.

In order to make `is_execution_policy` satisfity the requirements, an implementation should determine the base class (which is either `true_type` or `false_type`) for each specialization, but not add things into the `{}`.

This PR makes the intent clearer.
@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Jun 18, 2025

This seems like over-specification to me. The normative wording doesn't require that is_execution_policy is directly derived from bool_constant, does it? Implementations could very well use some intermediate base classes.

@frederick-vs-ja
Copy link
Contributor Author

This seems like over-specification to me. The normative wording doesn't require that is_execution_policy is directly derived from bool_constant, does it? Implementations could very well use some intermediate base classes.

I believe [derivation]/2 still allows implementations to use intermediate base classes even if bool_constant is explicitly specified.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Jun 19, 2025

That's true, good point.

Co-authored-by: Jonathan Wakely <github@kayari.org>
@frederick-vs-ja frederick-vs-ja changed the title [execpol.type] Make "see below" for is_execution_policy more precise [execpol.type] Drop "see below" from is_execution_policy Jun 19, 2025
@tkoeppe tkoeppe requested a review from jwakely June 19, 2025 08:29
@tkoeppe tkoeppe merged commit f457f12 into cplusplus:main Jun 19, 2025
2 checks passed
@frederick-vs-ja frederick-vs-ja deleted the is_execution_policy-see-below branch June 19, 2025 09:52
Copy link
Member

@jwakely jwakely left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants