P1144 R8 std::is_trivially_relocatable

[jensmaurer]

P1144R1 Object relocation in terms of move plus destroy (Arthur O'Dwyer)

[jensmaurer]

P1144R2 Object relocation in terms of move plus destroy (Arthur O'Dwyer)

[jfbastien]

This was seen by EWGI in SAN, along with P1029R1 SG14 [[move_relocates]] #359.
Interested, provided feedback, will see again.

[jensmaurer]

C++Now 2018 talk: https://youtube.com/watch?v=MWBfmmg8-Yo

[jfbastien]

EWG-I in Kona:
Talk to a Core person about lifetime issues.

Should this be mandated on existing STL containers? Might be an ABI break. LEWGI should see this.

Much feedback, still open questions. Should see again.

[wg21bot]

P1144R3 Object relocation in terms of move plus destroy (Arthur O'Dwyer)

[wg21bot]

P1144R4 Object relocation in terms of move plus destroy (Arthur O'Dwyer)

[erichkeane]

EWGI in Prague

We believe that P1029 and P1144 are
sufficiently different that they should be
advanced separately.

SF	F	N	A	SA
7	3	2	0	0

EWGI is OK to have the spelling as an
attribute with an expression argument?

SF	F	N	A	SA
3	5	1	1	0

EWGI would prefer a contextual keyword?

SF	F	N	A	SA
0	0	6	4	0

EWGI thinks the author should explore
implementing P1144 as a customizable type
trait?

SF	F	N	A	SA
0	0	0	9	2

Forward the P1144R5 + feedback given in the
room to EWG.

SF	F	N	A	SA
1	3	4	1	0

[[weak consensus determined in the room @jfbastien to determine if it counts]]

[wg21bot]

P1144R5 Object relocation in terms of move plus destroy (Arthur O'Dwyer)

[wg21bot]

P1144R6 Object relocation in terms of move plus destroy (Arthur O'Dwyer)

[erichkeane]

This paper was seen by EWGI with P2786 during the February 10th, 2023 evening session in Issaquah.

The following polls were taken:

Given the committee's limited bandwidth, EWGI believes the problem presented in P1144/P2786 is worth solving.

SF	F	N	A	SA
10	8	0	0	0

Result: Consensus

EWGI believes the problem being introduced in P1144/P2786 should be solved in a more general way instead of as proposed.

SF	F	N	A	SA
3	0	5	6	4

Result: Not Consensus

EWGI believes that the relocatable annotation in P1144R6 is acceptable as an attribute.

SF	F	N	A	SA
0	6	4	6	2

Result: Not Consensus

EWGI believes that the relocatable annotation should just 'trust' the user as presented in P1144R6 (aka sharp knife) instead of be diagnosed, as in P2786R0 (aka 'dull knife').

F	N	A
7	5	6

Result: No obvious preference

Inform the EWG chair that we believe P1144R6 is sufficiently ready to be presented in EWG.

SF	F	N	A	SA
0	7	4	3	1

Result: Not Consensus

Inform the EWG chair that we believe P2786R0 is sufficiently ready to be presented in EWG.

SF	F	N	A	SA
1	8	3	3	1

Result: Weak Consensus

The chair suggested working with the authors of P2786 to ensure a more unified set of options and pros/cons to EWG. This paper however, was decided as insufficiently ready for EWG.

[wg21bot]

P1144R7 std::is_trivially_relocatable (Arthur O'Dwyer)

[wg21bot]

P1144R8 std::is_trivially_relocatable (Arthur O'Dwyer)

[tekinas]

This is awesome.