P1169 static operator()

[wg21bot]

P1169R1 static operator() (Barry Revzin, Casey Carter)

[jfbastien]

San Diego 2018 EWGI discussion.

[jfbastien]

Discussed at the 2021-07-29 EWG telecon:

POLL: allow static lambdas to have captures.

SF	F	N	A	SA
0	3	4	5	0

Result: no consensus.

POLL: send P1169r1 static operator() to electronic polling, with the aim of forwarding it to Core for C++23 as a priority 2 item (improvement / performance).

SF	F	N	A	SA
6	6	1	0	0

Result: consensus.

[wg21bot]

P1169R2 static operator() (Barry Revzin, Casey Carter)

[wg21bot]

P1169R3 static operator() (Barry Revzin, Casey Carter)

[jfbastien]

2022-02 poll results:

SF	F	N	A	SA
16	16	3	1	1
Abstain: 8

Poll outcome:✅ consensus

[jensmaurer]

@jwakely , @JeffGarland : heads up, this contains library wording (in addition to CWG wording).

[JeffGarland]

@jensmaurer I took a brief look, are we really saying LEWG shouldn't have a review? And we're already out of bounds w.r.t. the design freeze for 23.

[cor3ntin]

I can bring this up on the mailing list.
If LWG cannot process this paper, i suggest we remove the library bits. which are not required for the rest of the paper.

We should also ask Barry/lewg whether move_only_function/function_ref need similar changes

[jwakely]

The library wording won't take long to review. The question is whether LEWG should see it first. The library part seems like a consistency fix, it's not a new library feature, so I don't think design freeze matters here.

[jensmaurer]

@JeffGarland , you're right, this hasn't been seen by LEWG yet. Sorry that I missed that fact.

@brycelelbach , here's an EWG-approved C++23 paper that has some library consistency adjustments. Please process ASAP.

[cor3ntin]

@JeffGarland @jensmaurer Looking at is is not an issue. the question though, is whether you want to see an electronic poll or you think "oh yes, we looked at it" is sufficient?

[brycelelbach]

@cor3ntin can you start a mailing list review for an expedited electronic poll ASAP so this can get into the recently announced polling period that will start on 2022-04-19. Please make sure to CC me.

[jensmaurer]

@cor3ntin , the details for approving the library parts of this paper are between the chairs of LWG and LEWG, I believe.

[brycelelbach]

@jensmaurer @JeffGarland @jwakely we'll do a mailing list review and electronic poll just to confirm. I don't expect any controversy or substantial discussion within Library Evolution.

[brycelelbach]

@JeffGarland this seems to be small by LWG standards but not CWG standards so I'm tagging it medium.

[JeffGarland]

Thanks all. @cor3ntin I did have a quick peak at the move_only_function section and I didn't see an impact there -- but it was a quick look.

[brycelelbach]

A motion to forward this paper directly to electronic polls was made on the Library Evolution mailing list on 2022-04-08. The motion passed with 7 +1s.

[jensmaurer]

CWG telecon 2022-04-08: Approved D1169R4 for plenary.

[wg21bot]

P1169R4 static operator() (Barry Revzin, Casey Carter)

[brycelelbach]

2022-05 Library Evolution Electronic Poll Outcomes

POLL: Send [P1169R3] Static operator() to Library Working Group for C++23, classified as an addition ([P0592R4] bucket 3 item).

Strongly Favor	Weakly Favor	Neutral	Weakly Against	Strongly Against
13	9	0	0	0

Unanimous consensus in favor.

[jwakely]

LWG approved the library changes.

[JeffGarland]

Details from 2022-07-01 meeting:
https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21telecons2022/P1169-20220701

poll: Library is happy for P1169 to be move by Core into C++23?

F	A	N
12	0	0

[JeffGarland]

I'm putting tentatively-ready-for-plenary so it drops off the todo list -- even though core will move this paper at plenary.