On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 9:25 AM Jonathan Wakely via SG10 < sg10@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 13:55, Jonathan Wakely <c...@kayari.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 13:14, Barry Revzin via SG10 >> <sg10@lists.isocpp.org> 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. > I concur with changing the feature test macro to __cpp_lib_integer_comparison_functions.
-- SG10 mailing list SG10@lists.isocpp.org https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg10