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: 2022-02 meeting #2527

Closed
20 tasks done
StephanTLavavej opened this issue Feb 8, 2022 · 3 comments
Closed
20 tasks done

Meta LWG issue: 2022-02 meeting #2527

StephanTLavavej opened this issue Feb 8, 2022 · 3 comments
Labels
LWG Library Working Group issue meta Issues about issues! resolved Successfully resolved without a commit

Comments

@StephanTLavavej
Copy link
Member

StephanTLavavej commented Feb 8, 2022

(Previous meta-issue: #2236)

At the February 2022 virtual plenary meeting, the following LWG issues were resolved in the C++ Working Paper.

❔ Not yet analyzed

❌ 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)
  • 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-3607 contiguous_iterator should not be allowed to have custom iter_move and iter_swap behavior
    • LWG-3619 Specification of vformat_to contains ill-formed formatted_size calls

😸 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.

  • Already implemented, comments need to be removed and messages need to cite the Standard
    • LWG-3601 common_iterator's postfix-proxy needs indirectly_readable
    • LWG-3616 LWG-3498 seems to miss the non-member swap for basic_syncbuf
  • Implemented without comments
    • LWG-3088 forward_list::merge behavior unclear when passed *this
    • LWG-3650 Are std::basic_string's iterator and const_iterator constexpr iterators?
    • LWG-3643 Missing constexpr in std::counted_iterator

🩹 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! labels Feb 8, 2022
@fsb4000

This comment was marked as resolved.

@frederick-vs-ja

This comment was marked as resolved.

@CaseyCarter
Copy link
Member

Thanks, @frederick-vs-ja! That's a ton of work. I put LWG-3632 under "not implemented" because I think we need a comment to explain why those constructors don't look like they do in the Standard to avoid confusion.

I've pushed a commit into #2549 to cleanup the comments for LWG-3601 and LWG-3616, after which I think we no longer need this tracking issue.

@StephanTLavavej StephanTLavavej added the resolved Successfully resolved without a commit label Nov 12, 2023
@StephanTLavavej StephanTLavavej changed the title February 2022 LWG issues Meta LWG issue: 2022-02 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

4 participants