[2018-06 LWG Motion 28] P0898R3 Standard library concepts

[jensmaurer]

P0898R3

[tkoeppe]

We should get the LaTeX sources from @CaseyCarter. I'd very much like to have an authoritative source for the stable labels that are used throughout the new wording.

[jensmaurer]

We still have to double-check the labels as per our current policy.

[CaseyCarter]

I plan to cleanup my latex sources and prepare the PR for P0898. Could someone please assign this issue to me so there's no confusion among the editors?

[jensmaurer]

Apparently, you can't assign to foreign people :-(

Assigning to myself to mark it as "taken" in the interim.

[zygoloid]

I've reconfigured GitHub so all editors can be assigned issues on this repository.

[CaseyCarter]

@timsong-cpp has pointed out to me that [meta.trans.other]/3.2:

[let] XREF(A) denote a unary class template T such that T<U> denotes the same type as U with the addition of A’s cv and reference qualifiers, for a type U such that is_same_v<U, remove_cvref_t<U>> is true

isn't possibly implementable with a class template, and that it should rather read "unary alias template". I'll file an issue to make this change after the merge.

[tkoeppe]

@CaseyCarter: is that editorial? If so, we could just tack that onto the motion application. Otherwise we'll wait for the LWG issue.

[CaseyCarter]

is that editorial?

By the strictest possible interpretation it is not editorial. It is certainly a borderline case: I would have made the change in the proposal had it been brought to my attention before the 20:00 deadline for the strawpolls page. I don't know where we draw the line for changes we consider to be "editorial-ish-enough" when incorporating motions, so I plan to precisely walk the line absent any direction otherwise from more experienced editors.

[tkoeppe]

@mclow: Maybe the LWG chair could weigh in on this border line?

[mclow]

I think we should err on the side of caution here - and open an issue.