Skip to content

[LWG motion 12 2024-06] P2300R10 std::execution #7114

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

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Jul 26, 2024
Merged

Conversation

jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Fixes #7095
Fixes cplusplus/papers#1054

@jensmaurer jensmaurer added this to the post-2024-06 milestone Jul 2, 2024
@jensmaurer jensmaurer force-pushed the motions-2024-06-lwg-12 branch 6 times, most recently from d48dfcb to 00d8f38 Compare July 4, 2024 17:52
@ericniebler
Copy link
Contributor

fyi, there is another unescaped < in [exec.with.awaitable.senders] p2. See cplusplus/sender-receiver#272.

Comment on lines 10839 to 10848
template<const auto& T>
using @\exposid{decayed-typeof}@ = decltype(auto(T)); // \expos
Copy link
Contributor

@frederick-vs-ja frederick-vs-ja Jul 16, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we just reuse the existing decay_t? (Perhaps changes should be in another PR, although.)
Edit: Oh, I see, decayed-typeof is applied to CPOs, so decltype(auto(T)) seems better for compilation throughput.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer changed the title P2300R10 std::execution [LWG motion 11 2024-06] P2422R1 Remove nodiscard annotations from the standard library specificationP2300R10 std::execution Jul 16, 2024
@jensmaurer jensmaurer changed the title [LWG motion 11 2024-06] P2422R1 Remove nodiscard annotations from the standard library specificationP2300R10 std::execution [LWG motion 12 2024-06] P2300R10 std::execution Jul 16, 2024
@jensmaurer jensmaurer force-pushed the motions-2024-06-lwg-12 branch 4 times, most recently from 33ed132 to 701ac82 Compare July 16, 2024 21:36
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member Author

We should clearly differentiate between fixes where the transcription from the approved P2300R10 HTML paper is wrong vs. fixes that go on top of that paper, because the paper is wrong / incomplete / broken / whatever.

The former fixes will eventually be squashed; the latter ones should remain separate commits to allow for easier historic inspection.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer force-pushed the motions-2024-06-lwg-12 branch from 701ac82 to 7a7b43c Compare July 17, 2024 15:03
@ericniebler
Copy link
Contributor

hi @jensmaurer. what remains to be done on this pr?

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member Author

hi @jensmaurer. what remains to be done on this pr?

Add indexing, merge to "main" branch.

@tkoeppe tkoeppe force-pushed the motions-2024-06-lwg-12 branch from c238725 to 4728288 Compare July 22, 2024 16:03
@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Jul 22, 2024

I have rebased this onto the current state; any reviews welcome!

@tkoeppe tkoeppe force-pushed the motions-2024-06-lwg-12 branch from 3309ea9 to 5d875b5 Compare July 25, 2024 23:44
@tkoeppe tkoeppe merged commit 91b87fd into main Jul 26, 2024
4 checks passed
@jensmaurer jensmaurer deleted the motions-2024-06-lwg-12 branch November 24, 2024 19:34
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[2024-06 LWG Motion 12] P2300R10 std::execution
4 participants