You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
CWG telecon 2022-07-01: Reviewed; needs a re-review due to a late small wording update.
An objection was raised against removing the normative requirement "An exported declaration that is not a module-import-declaration shall declare at least one name." As agreed with the EWG chair, the concern will be discussed in the upcoming EWG telecon.
Re-discussed during the EWG 7/21/2022 Telecon, and the following poll was (re)taken:
SF
F
N
A
SA
1
3
4
2
2
Result: Not Consensus
Due to the procedural concerns, this is replacing the previous vote on this topic. During the meeting, a replacement proposal was promised in the next mailing or so to solve this core issue.
static_assert(...); // as discussed, acceptasm("..."); // as discussed, accepttemplate voidf(); // as discussed, rejecttemplate<> void f<int>(); // as discussed, rejectA() -> A<0>; // treat like template and reject?
; // treat like static_assert and accept?[[...]]; // treat like static_assert and accept?
Activity
erichkeane commentedon Jun 23, 2022
This was discussed during the EWG 6/23/2022 Telecon, and the following poll was taken:
EWG Approves of the direction of Core's proposed solution to CWG2443 as a Defect Report.
Result: Consensus
This will be forwarded to CWG, pending feedback from a not-present-for-the-discussion implementer.
jensmaurer commentedon Jul 2, 2022
CWG telecon 2022-07-01: Reviewed; needs a re-review due to a late small wording update.
An objection was raised against removing the normative requirement "An exported declaration that is not a module-import-declaration shall declare at least one name." As agreed with the EWG chair, the concern will be discussed in the upcoming EWG telecon.
P2615R0 Meaningful exports (Davis Herring)
[-]CWG2443 Meaningless template exports[/-][+]P2615R Meaningful exports CWG2443[/+][-]P2615R Meaningful exports CWG2443[/-][+]P2615 Meaningful exports CWG2443[/+]erichkeane commentedon Jul 7, 2022
Time + Chair error resulted in this not getting seen at the 7/7 EWG telecon, so I'll ensure it is scheduled 1st thing on the 7/21 meeting.
jensmaurer commentedon Jul 15, 2022
CWG telecon 2022-07-15: Approved P2615R0 pending EWG approval.
wg21bot commentedon Jul 21, 2022
P2615R0 Meaningful exports (S. Davis Herring)
erichkeane commentedon Jul 21, 2022
Re-discussed during the EWG 7/21/2022 Telecon, and the following poll was (re)taken:
Result: Not Consensus
Due to the procedural concerns, this is replacing the previous vote on this topic. During the meeting, a replacement proposal was promised in the next mailing or so to solve this core issue.
3 remaining items
jensmaurer commentedon Nov 10, 2022
Davis tells us he needs to change the paper to implement EWG guidance.
jfbastien commentedon Nov 10, 2022
We need to address a few more cases:
erichkeane commentedon Nov 11, 2022
The potentially attributed null statement may have the 'export' keyword, despite it being meaningless.
Result: Consensus
A deduction guide declaration inside of an
export {}should be permitted, despite not having meaning.Result: Consensus
exporton a deduction guide declaration (no {}) should be permitted, despite not having meaning.Result: Consensus
wg21bot commentedon Dec 5, 2022
P2615R1 Meaningful exports (S. Davis Herring)