[libcxx-commits] [libcxx] [libc++] P2167R3: Improved Proposed Wording for LWG 2114 (PR #109102)

[A. Jiang via libcxx-commits]

frederick-vs-ja wrote:

> I didn't see any changes related to CPOs in the paper (which I only skimmed). Did I miss something?

The paper changed `compare_{strong,weak,partial}_order_fallback` CPOs in 
> 4. Modify 17.12.6 [cmp.alg] as indicated: [...]

> I don't think I see test changes reflecting that. Did we have proper coverage for LWG3465?

Yes, the test coverage for LWG3465 is here - although it didn't cover convertibility to `bool`.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/5e3d48a68096a0017a0fa4bb89f2d48767c8a7e4/libcxx/test/std/language.support/cmp/cmp.alg/compare_partial_order_fallback.pass.cpp#L295-L301

I think it's OK to just keep the existing test cases above. Perhaps the test coverage should be extended...

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109102