[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D92725: [libc++] [LWG2993] reference_wrapper<T> conversion from U&&

[Arthur O'Dwyer via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

Quuxplusone marked an inline comment as done.
Quuxplusone added inline comments.


================
Comment at: libcxx/docs/Cxx2aStatusIssuesStatus.csv:38
 "`2988 <https://wg21.link/LWG2988>`__","Clause 32 cleanup missed one typename","Albuquerque","",""
-"`2993 <https://wg21.link/LWG2993>`__","reference_wrapper<T> conversion from T&&","Albuquerque","",""
+"`2993 <https://wg21.link/LWG2993>`__","reference_wrapper<T> conversion from T&&","Albuquerque","|Complete|",""
 "`2998 <https://wg21.link/LWG2998>`__","Requirements on function objects passed to {``forward_``,}list-specific algorithms","Albuquerque","|Nothing To Do|",""
----------------
Mordante wrote:
> Can you add the version number in the last column?
> 
A priori I'm not sure what the convention is here.

- I've seen people adding "Clang 12.0" in some other files
- but //this// file uses just `""` consistently, e.g. on lines 43 and 44
- as a code-hygiene thing, clearly the best thing to do is have the person who cuts the 12.0 release update all the empty strings to "12.0" in one single commit (or to "12" if that's the convention, or to "2020.17" if we move to a different numbering scheme, etc.) — this avoids forcing individual contributors to guess at the next release number before it's announced

So I'll happily and quickly do whatever, but I'd like @ldionne to tell me.


================
Comment at: libcxx/test/std/utilities/function.objects/refwrap/refwrap.const/deduct.pass.cpp:26
+    std::reference_wrapper rj(j);
+    static_assert(std::is_same<decltype(rj), std::reference_wrapper<const int>>::value, "");
+}
----------------
Mordante wrote:
> Since the test requires C++17 you could use `std::is_same_v` and remove the empty strings from the `static_assert`.
Will do!


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D92725/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D92725