-
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
P2988 R7 std::optional<T&> #1661
Comments
2024-01-02 Library Evolution TeleconP2988R0: std::optional<T&> 2024-01-02 Library Evolution Telecon Minutes Champion: Steve Downey Chair: Billy Baker Minute Taker: Ben Craig SummaryReferences mentioned during the discussion:
The author will explore and add information on:
No polls were taken. Next StepsThe room was generally supportive of the proposal but would like the author to come back with more rationale for the (already settled) design decisions and further exploration of the open topics mentioned above. |
P2988R1 std::optional<T&> (Steve Downey, Peter Sommerlad) |
P2988R3 std::optional<T&> (Steve Downey, Peter Sommerlad) |
2024-03-22 Library Evolution TokyoP3199R0: Choices for make_optional and value() 2024-03-22 Library Evolution Tokyo Minutes Champion: Steve Downey SummaryPOLL: Block progress on P2988 until we change make_optional in service of optional<T&> Attendance: 20+10 # of Authors: 1 Outcome: No objection to unanimnous dissent (rejected) POLL: Make value_or return T in the std::optional<T&> specialization in P2988 (std::optional<T&>)
Attendance: 20+10 # of Authors: 1 Author Position: SF Outcome: Very weak consensus WF: Motivation could be improved POLL: Make value_or return T& in the std::optional<T&> specialization in P2988 (std::optional<T&>)
Attendance: 20+10 # of Authors: 1 Author Position: Outcome: No consensus POLL: Remove value_or from the std::optional<T&> specialization in P2988 (std::optional<T&>)
Attendance: 20+10 # of Authors: 1 Author Position: Consensus agains Outcome: Consensus against Next StepsHaving value_or return T has the most consensus of the options, but additional motivation may be in order considering the consensus was so weak. The feeling of the room is likely to change from poll to poll. |
P2988R4 std::optional<T&> (Steve Downey, Peter Sommerlad) |
P2988R5 std::optional<T&> (Steve Downey, Peter Sommerlad) |
P2988R6 std::optional<T&> (Steve Downey, Peter Sommerlad) |
2024-09-03 Library Evolution TeleconP2988R6 std::optional<T&> 2024-09-03 Library Evolution Telecon Minutes Champion: Steve Downey SummaryPOLL: We’re happy with the behaviour “P2988R6: std::optional <T&>” which leave the behaviour of make_optional<T&> as currently is in the standard (return optional<T> or in some cases it being ill-formed) Attendance: 20 Next StepsWe will continue the review of R6 of the paper during the next telecon. |
2024-09-10 Library Evolution TeleconP2988R6: std::optional<T&> 2024-09-10 Library Evolution Telecon Minutes Champion: Steve Downey SummaryPaper Forwarding Checklist
ACTION: Strike POLL: Add optional& constructor and assigment
Attendance: 15 POLL: We approve of the design in P2988R7 with the added optional& constructor and assignment operator.
Attendance: 15 Next StepsDesign is approved. We will look at the updated wording in a future meeting, with the goal to forward to LWG. |
P2988R7 std::optional<T&> (Steve Downey, Peter Sommerlad) |
P2988R0 std::optional<T&> (Steve Downey)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: