[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D107877: [libc++] [doc] Add issue tracking for spaceship operator<=> implementation

[Louis Dionne via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

ldionne added inline comments.


================
Comment at: libcxx/docs/Status/SpaceshipPapers.csv:3-9
+`P2404R0 <https://wg21.link/P2404>`_,"Relaxing equality_comparable_with's, totally_ordered_with's, and three_way_comparable_with's common reference requirements to support move-only types",,
+`P2405R0 <https://wg21.link/P2405>`_,nullopt_t and nullptr_t should both have operator<=> and operator==,,
+`LWG3330 <https://wg21.link/LWG3330>`_,Include <compare> from most library headers,|In Progress|,
+`LWG3347 <https://wg21.link/LWG3347>`_,"std::pair<T, U> now requires T and U to be less-than-comparable",|Nothing To Do|,
+`LWG3350 <https://wg21.link/LWG3350>`_,Simplify return type of lexicographical_compare_three_way,|Nothing To Do|,
+`LWG3360 <https://wg21.link/LWG3360>`_,three_way_comparable_with is inconsistent with similar concepts,|Nothing To Do|,
+`LWG3380 <https://wg21.link/LWG3380>`_,common_type and comparison categories,|Nothing To Do|,
----------------
mumbleskates wrote:
> ldionne wrote:
> > I'd like to track those using the regular `Cxx20Papers.csv` and `Cxx20Issues.csv` lists instead. `SpaceshipProjects.csv` should only contain stuff related to https://wg21.link/P1614, otherwise we duplicate information and things become too complicated.
> > 
> > Also, before you mark any LWG issue as "Nothing To Do", you need to explain why that's the case. Normally, this is done as a NFC commit after the fact.
> Ok, great. I'm working on cleaning this up further in D108502, we can fix it there.
> 
> I'm fine with removing entries here. I originally had this empty, then I went back after feedback to add papers related to the effort. If we don't want duplicates that's fine.
> 
> Nothing To Do LWG entries are all individually justifiable because they affect parts of the standard that are not yet implemented, already implemented with the specified changes, or the changes do not affect the implementation.
> Nothing To Do LWG entries are all individually justifiable because they affect parts of the standard that are not yet implemented, already implemented with the specified changes, or the changes do not affect the implementation.

If the relevant part of the standard is not implemented in libc++ yet, then the LWG issue isn't "Nothing to do". We say "Nothing to do" when our implementation already implemented the LWG issue resolution.

I want those "Nothing To Do" entries to be done as a separate review so we can have a discussion on those.



Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D107877/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D107877