[2025-11 LWG Motion 14] P1789R3 Library Support for Expansion Statements #8482
Conversation
|
While applying the paper I noticed that we use the section title "Tuple interface" in [complex.tuple] and [array.tuple] instead. Shall we do the same here and rename [intseq.binding] to [intseq.tuple] along with "Tuple interface" as title? |
I'm personally fine with such inconsistency because |
|
Associated NB comment: https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/584 |
| template<size_t I, class T, T... Values> | ||
| struct tuple_element<I, const integer_sequence<T, Values...>> { | ||
| using type = T; | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We don't normally apply two-space indentation to definitions of classes. However, we're not consistent about that in general. There are definitions like struct nontype_t which are indented.
I don't think it needs to be fixed here, just something to keep in mind.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We seem to sometimes do that for short class definitions and empty classes (which would be the case for tuple_size directly above).
Currently tuple_element specializations for array, tuple and pair use 2-space indentation for the definition. Specializations for complex and ranges::subrange do not.
I've left it as is for now.
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| template<size_t I, class T, T... Values> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this separating blank line should exist. We normally specify overload sets without such separators. However, these are not function overloads, so it's a bit of an edge case.
Note that the synopsis does not have a blank line separator.
Thomas should make a judgment call here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've removed the blank line to match synopsis. For ranges::subrange we do not have a newline between tuple_element specializations either, but we also do not have one after the tuple_size specialization (which imho does not help readability).
4 participants
Fixes: #8473
Also fixes: cplusplus/papers#535
Also fixes https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/584