Skip to content

Meta LWG issue: 2023-11 meeting #4158

Description

(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

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    LWGLibrary Working Group issuemetaIssues about issues!resolvedSuccessfully resolved without a commit

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions