Missing wording for optional's value_or
Dani-Hub opened this issue · 2 comments
According to n3793, the remarks element of [optional.object.observe] p23 should be worded the following way:
Remarks: If both constructors of T which could be selected are constexpr constructors, this function shall be a constexpr function.
This seems not be properly applied, instead the wording corresponds to a previous version of the proposal
In Issaquah the LWG concluded that this particular change was incorrect:
We didn't get an updated paper with that change, so I'm not sure what the proper procedure is here. By omitting the change today, we don't have to undo it in Rapperswil, but the committee did vote in the whole paper, mistakes and all.
2014-03-03 0:02 GMT+01:00 Jeffrey Yasskin notifications@github.com:
In Issaquah the LWG concluded that this particular change was incorrect:
"Jonathan: The change where we changed "selected constructor of T is a
constexpr" to "If both constructors..." is in fact wrong, and should be
reverted. http://wiki.edg.com/twiki/bin/view/Wg21issaquah/N3793We didn't get an updated paper with that change, so I'm not sure what the
proper procedure is here. By omitting the change today, we don't have to
undo it in Rapperswil, but the committee did vote in the whole paper,
mistakes and all.
Thanks for the update. Personally I have no complains, but we need to be
sure that we don't conflict with the formalities. Given that I see no
change request for this on the Formal Motions page I suspect the right way
is to apply the wording as suggested for the motion and than to open an
issue to fix it.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/35#issuecomment-36470935
.