Skip to content

Conversation

zygoloid
Copy link
Member

@zygoloid zygoloid commented Nov 13, 2019

Fixes #3401.

Also fixes NB US 092, US 093, US 100, US 102, US 114 (C++20 CD).

Fixes cplusplus/nbballot#91
Fixes cplusplus/nbballot#92
Fixes cplusplus/nbballot#99
Fixes cplusplus/nbballot#101
Fixes cplusplus/nbballot#113

Fixes cplusplus/papers#653

@zygoloid zygoloid added this to the post-2019-11 milestone Nov 13, 2019
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

jensmaurer commented Nov 13, 2019

Augmented the initial comment of this pull request (not the commit message itself) to link and auto-close the respective NB comment issues.

Copy link
Contributor

@JohelEGP JohelEGP left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The first list may need indentation. The other two use a novel style.

Copy link
Member

@jensmaurer jensmaurer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please increase the feature-test macro __cpp_nontype_template_args .

@jensmaurer jensmaurer added the changes requested Changes to the wording or approach have been requested and not yet applied. label Nov 13, 2019
@zygoloid zygoloid requested a review from jensmaurer November 13, 2019 23:59
@zygoloid
Copy link
Member Author

Please increase the feature-test macro __cpp_nontype_template_args.

We absolutely should bump some feature-test macro here, but that is neither requested by the wording paper nor an editorial change. (Also, is that the right one? Should we bump __cpp_nontype_template_parameter_class instead? Or maybe both?) If SG10 and CWG are happy, I think I could be OK with making the change editorially anyway, but it seems like a stretch.

I've started a thread on the relevant reflectors.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

We're also editorially bumping __cplusplus, so bumping a feature-test macro seems similarly editorial to me. Having SG10 and CWG buy-in is good, though.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

So, the actual changes are good, but I continue to believe we should bump a feature-test macro. I agree that removing one (as suggested on the reflector) is a bit beyond editorial.

@zygoloid zygoloid removed the changes requested Changes to the wording or approach have been requested and not yet applied. label Nov 16, 2019
@zygoloid
Copy link
Member Author

@brevzin Can you take a look and confirm you consider the feature test macro changes to be acceptable as an editorial change?

@brevzin
Copy link
Contributor

brevzin commented Nov 16, 2019

@zygoloid Yep. There were no objections on either list. Looks good to me.

Moved definition of "structural type" next to its only use.
Removed unused name T for type of an enumeration value in definition of
template-argument-equivalent.

Also fixes NB US 092, US 093, US 100, US 102, US 114 (C++20 CD).
@zygoloid zygoloid force-pushed the motions-2019-11-cwg-8 branch from 2aa6088 to dbc73bf Compare November 20, 2019 22:47
for P1907R1, and remove __cpp_nontype_template_parameter_class to
indicate that the feature added by P0732R2 is no longer present in that
form.
@zygoloid zygoloid force-pushed the motions-2019-11-cwg-8 branch from dbc73bf to 0c61ad1 Compare November 20, 2019 22:58
@zygoloid zygoloid merged commit b713e88 into master Nov 20, 2019
@jensmaurer jensmaurer deleted the motions-2019-11-cwg-8 branch February 18, 2020 20:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment