Skip to content
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

US170 17.11 [cmp] Remove strong_equality and weak_equality #168

Closed
wg21bot opened this issue Oct 23, 2019 · 4 comments · Fixed by cplusplus/draft#3475
Closed

US170 17.11 [cmp] Remove strong_equality and weak_equality #168

wg21bot opened this issue Oct 23, 2019 · 4 comments · Fixed by cplusplus/draft#3475
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@wg21bot
Copy link
Collaborator

wg21bot commented Oct 23, 2019

The strong_equality and weak_equality comparison categories don’t make sense now that we split equality from ordering. It doesn’t make sense to declare an operator<=> that returns one of these – they just add needless complexity.

Proposed change:
Remove strong_equality and weak_equality. Simplify three_way_comparable{,_with} to only deal with the ordering categories.

@brevzin
Copy link
Collaborator

brevzin commented Nov 4, 2019

@tituswinters
Copy link

LEWG in Belfast: Forward D1959R0 to LWG for C++20.

(Prioritization on this vs. other paper-sized NB comments will be shared with LWG chair when LEWG finishes NB comment processing.)

@tituswinters tituswinters added LWG Library and removed LEWG Library Evolution labels Nov 6, 2019
@mclow
Copy link

mclow commented Nov 7, 2019

LWG reviewed the library wording in this paper, and approved on Thursday afternoon.

@mclow mclow added CWG Core and removed LWG Library labels Nov 7, 2019
@jensmaurer jensmaurer changed the title DE170 17.11 [cmp] Remove strong_equality and weak_equality US170 17.11 [cmp] Remove strong_equality and weak_equality Nov 7, 2019
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

CWG in Belfast: Accepted.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants