[2026-03 LWG Motion 16] P3948R1 constant_wrapper is the only tool needed#8878
[2026-03 LWG Motion 16] P3948R1 constant_wrapper is the only tool needed#8878eisenwave wants to merge 1 commit intocplusplus:mainfrom
Conversation
… expressions via function arguments Fixes NB FR-019-210 and FR-021-218 (C++26 CD).
|
@jwakely @mattkretz we have goofed HARD. The paper deletes https://eel.is/c++draft/func.wrap.ref.deduct (will deal with overfull hboxes once home btw) |
| \item | ||
| If \tcode{is_pointer_v<F> || is_member_pointer_v<F>} is \tcode{true}, | ||
| then \tcode{f != nullptr} is \tcode{true}. | ||
| then \tcode{f != nullptr} is \tcode{true}, and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| then \tcode{f != nullptr} is \tcode{true}, and | |
| then \tcode{f.value != nullptr} is \tcode{true}, and |
Can we just delete that (which is fine as an editorial change, because the draft is inconsistent if it refers to a type which no longer exists), or does it need to be changed to use |
|
I believe the purpose of the deduction guides is to make things possible like void f();
// CTAD
std::function_ref ref = std::nontype<f>;Or now equivalently with I suppose the only editorial way to get the draft into a working state is to delete the deduction guides editorially and to reintroduce them by LWG issue. Any LWG resolutions won't be merged into the DIS anyway, right? We need to ship these motions. |
|
Herb reminded us that accepting motion can also introduce editorial change, so I suggest just finishing the renaming here. |
|
Personally, I support treating this as an editorial wording defect in the proposal, as the intention is obviously to replace all usage of |
Fixes #8850
Fixes NB FR-019-210 and FR-021-218 (C++26 CD).
Also fixes https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/779
Also fixes https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/788