-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18
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
P2265 Renaming any_invocable #958
Comments
P2265R0: Renaming P0288R7: P0792R5: 2020-12-08 Library Evolution Telecon Minutes Chair: Bryce Adelstein Lelbach Champion: Kevlin Henney Minute Taker: Ben Craig Start: 2020-12-08 10:09 Pacific Kevlin's ordered preferences for the facility in P0288 (
Note that the order Kevlin wrote in P2265 is incorrect; the above is the right version. Other options for the facility in P0288 (
What type-erased facilities use the
We also have the option of adding aliases to make We should at least have consensus that Should we name this for what it is or what it contains? If we decide to not call the move-only function wrapper in P0288 POLL: The facilities introduced in P0288 and P0792 should have
Attendance: 38 Outcome: Weak consensus in favor. Existing precedent and policy for the POLL: Type-erasing wrappers for concepts should follow the
Attendance: 36 Outcome: That has no consensus. POLL: Type-erasing wrappers should have an
Attendance: 36 Outcome: That has no consensus. Somebody from the against camp should write a paper about this (ideally proposing an alternative guideline). POLL: The facility in P0792 should be named:
Attendance: 35 Outcome: We agree that the facility in P0792 should be called That probably means we feel type erasure does not imply POLL: The facility in P0288 should be named:
Attendance: 34 Outcome: We need to make a decision for the name of P0288 ( End: 11:46 SummaryWe had a lively discussion with excellent turnout on naming, focused on the facilities in P0288 (
It is not clear whether we have consensus on the answers to any of these questions. One of the underlying challenges is this discussion is different views regarding what kind and degree of consistency do we desire for the names of these facilities and future facilities like them. Some wish for these facilities to be named and thought of as wrappers for the concepts they hold. Others wish for names that reflect pre-concept existing practice and precedent, such as Some expressed concerns about possible confusion caused by the name We also briefly discussed the possibility of introducing type aliases for OutcomeMost of us seem to believe that, at the very least, the facilities in P0288 ( We need to make a decision for the name of P0288 ( Other type-erased facilities using |
P2265R0: 2021-01-05 Library Evolution Telecon Minutes Chair: Bryce Adelstein Lelbach Minute Taker: Ben Craig Start: 2021-01-05 10:08 Pacific What headers should
Separate into multiple two questions:
POLL: Including
Attendance: 32 Outcome: That has consensus. POLL: There should be one or more new headers that allow fine-grained inclusion of
Attendance: 32 Outcome: That has no consensus. Ask if anyone is writing additional papers on Do we want to block delivery of these features over the names? Do we want to block delivery of these features until we establish clear guidelines for naming typed erased things? Do we want to block delivery of these features until we establish clear guidelines for naming things in general? Poll the names together. POLL: We must establish a general policy for naming typed-erased facilities before naming the facilities in P0288 and P0792.
Attendance: 32 Outcome: That has consensus against. POLL: Given that we have consensus that the P0792 facility should be named
Attendance: 32 POLL: Given that we have consensus that the P0792 facility should be named
Attendance: 32 POLL: Change P0288 by renaming
Attendance: 32 # of Authors: 1 Author Position: Abstained Outcome: That has strong consensus. There will be an electronic poll with the above question (likely with an added reference to P2265) on the next electronic polling period. End: 11:28 SummaryWe continued our discussion of what name we should give to the new function wrapper facilities in P0288 ( We also discussed which headers should provide OutcomeWe did not make any changes to P0792 ( We will take an electronic poll on the changing P0288 by renaming |
2021 Winter Library Evolution PollsP2333: 2020 Fall Library Evolution Poll Outcomes POLL 1: Modify P0288R7 (
Outcome: Consensus in favor. OutcomeModify P0288R7 ( God willing, this will be the last time Library Evolution forwards P0288 to Library. |
P2265R1 Renaming any_invocable (Kevlin Henney) |
P2265R0 Renaming any_invocable (Kevlin Henney)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: