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

Meta LWG issue: 2023-11 meeting #4158

Closed
22 tasks done
StephanTLavavej opened this issue Nov 12, 2023 · 0 comments
Closed
22 tasks done

Meta LWG issue: 2023-11 meeting #4158

StephanTLavavej opened this issue Nov 12, 2023 · 0 comments
Labels
LWG Library Working Group issue meta Issues about issues! resolved Successfully resolved without a commit

Comments

@StephanTLavavej
Copy link
Member

StephanTLavavej commented Nov 12, 2023

(Previous meta-issue: #3778)

At the November 2023 meeting, the following LWG issues were resolved in the C++ Working Paper.

❔ Not yet analyzed

  • Remaining issues:
    • All done!

❌ Not applicable

If an issue requires no action from implementers, we mark it as N/A. Categories:

  • Pure wording clarifications with nothing to implement (these can be changes to non-normative text like examples and informative notes, or wording cleanups to normative text that don't impact observable behavior)

    • LWG-2392 "character type" is used but not defined
    • LWG-3203 span element access invalidation
    • LWG-3957 [container.alloc.reqmts] The value category of v should be claimed
    • LWG-3965 Incorrect example in [format.string.escaped]/3 for formatting of combining characters
      • Our implementation agrees with the corrected example.
  • Something that increases the restrictions placed on users, but implementers aren't expected to enforce those restrictions

    • LWG-3990 Program-defined specializations of tuple and variant can't be properly supported
  • Fixes for obviously broken wording, where implementers would have done the right thing anyways

    • LWG-3431 <=> for containers should require three_way_comparable<T> instead of <=>
    • LWG-3951 [expected.object.swap]: Using value() instead of has_value()

😸 Already implemented

Sometimes we cite LWG issues in product code comments as we're implementing their proposed resolutions. When the resolutions are officially accepted, we should remove the citations (as the default assumption is that we're implementing what the Standard says). If something is especially subtle, we can convert the citation to mention the relevant Standard section. Sometimes we should add test coverage - e.g. when the Standard begins requiring something that we were already doing, but weren't explicitly testing for.

🩹 Patches an unimplemented feature

We should record this LWG issue in the GitHub issue tracking the feature. That way, we'll remember to verify it, but it doesn't represent net new work.

🐞 Not yet implemented

@StephanTLavavej StephanTLavavej added LWG Library Working Group issue meta Issues about issues! resolved Successfully resolved without a commit labels Nov 12, 2023
@StephanTLavavej StephanTLavavej changed the title November 2023 LWG issues Meta LWG issue: 2023-11 meeting Mar 28, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
LWG Library Working Group issue meta Issues about issues! resolved Successfully resolved without a commit
Projects
Status: Done
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant