[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D139900: [libc++][ranges] Mark completed Ranges papers and issues as done, bump version macro

Tue Jan 17 22:54:35 PST 2023

var-const marked 3 inline comments as done.
var-const added a subscriber: ldionne.
var-const added inline comments.

================
Comment at: libcxx/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:52
 - P0339R6 - ``polymorphic_allocator<>`` as a vocabulary type
+- P2325R3 - Views should not be required to be default constructible

----------------
philnik wrote:
> var-const wrote:
> > Should we add any other papers that this patch marks as done (or that were marked as done recently) here? This one is probably worth calling out because it bumps the ranges version macro. I'm not sure if others are worth calling out since they focus on fixing defects rather than adding new features, what do you think?
> I think it makes sense to list all papers. That allows people to quickly find out if a paper has been implemented that they are interested in, even if it's not a major change. I'm a lot more on the fence about LWG issues, since that would probably result in a lot of noise.
Personally, I would prefer to only list major papers (I don't like having to sift through a bunch of minor papers that are sometimes just outgrowth of LWG issues to find significant new features, if any). I don't feel too strongly about it, though.

@ldionne Louis, do you think it makes more sense to list all implemented papers (even the ones with minor fixes) or only the major ones? I think I'll merge this patch as is but happy to follow up tomorrow with a fuller list if that's what we ultimately decide.

================
Comment at: libcxx/include/version:139
 __cpp_lib_quoted_string_io                              201304L <iomanip>
-__cpp_lib_ranges                                        201811L <algorithm> <functional> <iterator>
+__cpp_lib_ranges                                        202106L <algorithm> <functional> <iterator>
                                                                 <memory> <ranges>
----------------
Mordante wrote:
> var-const wrote:
> > philnik wrote:
> > > var-const wrote:
> > > > If we follow the suggestion from https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/1007 to apply the change to C++20 retroactively, I presume it means we don't need different values of the macro for C++20 and C++23.
> > > > 
> > > > (Unfortunately, we missed the previous version bump of this macro to `201911L` that should have happened when we marked P1716R3 as implemented)
> > > Well, we'll need different values once we implement P2415R2 (which seems to be missing from the status page?), P2387R3 and P2494R2.
> > Looking at https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/1085, it appears that `P2415R2` was also adopted as a DR against C++20. It is listed in `docs/Status/Cxx20Papers.csv`. But yeah, for the latter papers looks like we'll need different values.
> I applied the same logic to the DR papers for format, so I agree that's what we should do.
Thanks for this context!

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D139900/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D139900