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: 2021-06 meeting #1965

Closed
36 tasks done
StephanTLavavej opened this issue Jun 8, 2021 · 13 comments
Closed
36 tasks done

Meta LWG issue: 2021-06 meeting #1965

StephanTLavavej opened this issue Jun 8, 2021 · 13 comments
Labels
LWG Library Working Group issue meta Issues about issues! resolved Successfully resolved without a commit

Comments

@StephanTLavavej
Copy link
Member

StephanTLavavej commented Jun 8, 2021

(Previous meta-issue: #1679)

At the June 2021 virtual plenary meeting, the following LWG issues were resolved in the C++ Working Paper.

❔ Not yet analyzed

  • All done! 😺

For each of these issues, we've determined whether they are:

✖️ 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-2997 LWG-491 and the specification of {forward_,}list::unique
    • LWG-3521 Overly strict requirements on qsort and bsearch
    • LWG-3526 Return types of uses_allocator_construction_args unspecified
  • Something that increases the restrictions placed on users, but implementers aren't expected to enforce those restrictions
  • Fixes for obviously broken wording, where implementers would have done the right thing anyways
    • LWG-2818 "::std::" everywhere rule needs tweaking
    • LWG-3462 Formatter requirements forbid use of fc.arg()
    • LWG-3551 borrowed_{iterator,subrange}_t are overspecified

😸 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 the LWG Library Working Group issue label Jun 8, 2021
@SuperWig

This comment has been minimized.

@cpplearner

This comment has been minimized.

@CaseyCarter

This comment has been minimized.

@MattStephanson

This comment has been minimized.

@miscco

This comment has been minimized.

@miscco

This comment has been minimized.

miscco added a commit to miscco/STL that referenced this issue Jun 9, 2021
as this is only internal machinery, I did not add any tests

Adresses microsoft#1965
@miscco

This comment has been minimized.

miscco added a commit to miscco/STL that referenced this issue Jun 9, 2021
We currently have no real infrastructure to test move only iterators, we should discuss that

Addresses microsoft#1965
miscco added a commit to miscco/STL that referenced this issue Jun 9, 2021
This makes indirectly_readable_traits SFINAE friendly and adds some tests for that

Addresses microsoft#1965
miscco added a commit to miscco/STL that referenced this issue Jun 9, 2021
I did split out transform_view::iterator tests

Addresses microsoft#1965
miscco added a commit to miscco/STL that referenced this issue Jun 9, 2021
miscco added a commit to miscco/STL that referenced this issue Jun 9, 2021
miscco added a commit to miscco/STL that referenced this issue Jun 9, 2021
miscco added a commit to miscco/STL that referenced this issue Jun 9, 2021
@CaseyCarter

This comment has been minimized.

@CaseyCarter

This comment has been minimized.

@frederick-vs-ja

This comment has been minimized.

@MattStephanson

This comment has been minimized.

@StephanTLavavej

This comment has been minimized.

@StephanTLavavej
Copy link
Member Author

@frederick-vs-ja Thanks for analyzing the remaining issues! I agree with all of your conclusions, and have filed issues accordingly.

@MattStephanson I filed #2179, quoting the discussion here, so you can link your PR to it when you're ready.

Thanks everyone! All of the June 2021 LWG issues have either been resolved or properly tracked, so I'm closing this meta-issue.

@StephanTLavavej StephanTLavavej added the resolved Successfully resolved without a commit label Sep 2, 2021
@StephanTLavavej StephanTLavavej added the meta Issues about issues! label Oct 4, 2021
CaseyCarter added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 9, 2021
…#1991)

Addresses #1965

Co-authored-by: S. B. Tam <cpplearner@outlook.com>
Co-authored-by: Casey Carter <Casey@Carter.net>
AreaZR pushed a commit to AreaZR/STL that referenced this issue Nov 4, 2021
…microsoft#1991)

Addresses microsoft#1965

Co-authored-by: S. B. Tam <cpplearner@outlook.com>
Co-authored-by: Casey Carter <Casey@Carter.net>
@StephanTLavavej StephanTLavavej changed the title June 2021 LWG issues Meta LWG issue: 2021-06 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

7 participants