On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 13:55, Jonathan Wakely <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 13:14, Barry Revzin via SG10 > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi SG10, > > > > What does the group think of the following papers. > > > > "Safe integral comparisons" > > http://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21prague/StrawPolls/P0586R2.html > > > In [version.syn] add the feature test macro __cpp_lib_cmp_equal // > also defined in <utility>. > > The paper introduces 7 functions, one of which is cmp_equal. Should the > macro be __cpp_lib_safe_integral_comparisons? > > No, the word "safe" is toxic. "integral_comparison_functions" seems > better to me. > > > "Improving the Return Value of Erase-Like Algorithms > II:Freeerase/eraseif" > > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1115r3.pdf > > This paper suggests no new feature test macro, but affects the return > type of some functions introduced by the free erase/erase_if paper, should > it bump the __cpp_lib_erase_if macro value? > > I've just realised it should be *integer* comparison functions, not *integral* comparison functions. char and bool are integral types, but not supported by these functions. Only the signed and unsigned integer types are supported.
-- SG10 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg10
