[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D102121: [libcxx][ranges] adds _`non-propagating-cache`_

[Zoe Carver via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

zoecarver added a comment.

Other than my nit, this looks good to me.

Note: I think I recall you (or maybe it was someone else) saying that we should name headers like this `__non_propagating_cache.h` (with two underscores at the beginning). We should decide what we want to do about this and update both patches accordingly.



================
Comment at: libcxx/include/__ranges/non_propagating_cache.h:34
+namespace ranges {
+  template<class _Tp, bool __enable_cache>
+  requires is_object_v<_Tp>
----------------
cjdb wrote:
> zoecarver wrote:
> > Could we constrain this further? 
> Why should we constrain this further?
Not sure what I was thinking here, sorry. 


================
Comment at: libcxx/include/__ranges/non_propagating_cache.h:38
+    using optional<_Tp>::optional;
+    inline static constexpr bool cache_enabled = true;
+
----------------
cjdb wrote:
> zoecarver wrote:
> > This name should be mangled.
> `__uglified`?
Yes.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D102121/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D102121