[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D105103: Add list of LWG papers accepted by WG21 during the June 2021 plenary

Tue Jun 29 10:07:54 PDT 2021

cor3ntin added inline comments.

================
Comment at: libcxx/docs/Cxx2bStatusPaperStatus.csv:26
+"`P2210R2 <https://wg21.link/P2210R2>`__","LWG",Superior String Splitting,"June 2021","",""
+"`P2216R3 <https://wg21.link/P2216R3>`__","LWG",std::format improvements,"June 2021","",""
+"`P2231R1 <https://wg21.link/P2231R1>`__","LWG","Missing constexpr in std::optional and std::variant","June 2021","",""
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> Mordante wrote:
> > Can you add a note that this paper has been retroactively accepted in C++20? (The same for the other papers retroactively accepted to C++20.)
> Actually, based on @mordante's comments, I'm revising my opinion: If a paper was accepted as a DR against C++20 or earlier (especially, I assume, all the format- and ranges-related papers; but also the constexpr-`optional` paper p2231 which was DR'ed back to C++20 but not C++17, IIUC), then I see how it makes perfect sense to list them in `Cxx2aStatusPaperStatus.csv` instead of `Cxx2bStatusPaperStatus.csv`.
> 
>  I still think that every paper voted in at the June meeting should appear in //either// `Cxx2bStatusPaperStatus.csv` //or// `Cxx2aStatusPaperStatus.csv`. (That is, no paper should appear //solely// in `RangesIssuePaperStatus.csv`. So thank you for fixing that.)
> 
> It'd be nice if the commit message explained where this data came from.
I think it makes more sense too keep everything under 23 with a note.

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D105103/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D105103