cplusplus / nbballot

Handling of NB comments in response to ballots
14 stars 4 forks source link

US 35-092 22.8 [expected] Monadic operations for expected #510

Closed wg21bot closed 1 year ago

wg21bot commented 1 year ago

std::expected is quite clunky to use without extra help for control flow. It’s important to provide extra functionality to aid its adoption

Proposed change:

Adopt P2505.

brycelelbach commented 1 year ago

Duplicate of #433

The proposed resolution is to adopt P2505 https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/1161

JeffGarland commented 1 year ago

@brycelelbach If you check the link you'll see that LWG is already done processing P2505 -- since LEWG has already approved the design I'm not even sure LEWG needs to reaffirm and I think we should be able to move to plenary at this meeting.

jensmaurer commented 1 year ago

@JeffGarland : There are good reasons to hold new features added during NB comment processing to a higher bar than usual. Parties not attending meetings could be surprised by a new feature, reducing consensus for the FDIS ballot.

Thus, LEWG having approved a design for C++26 (obviously, because the C++23 design deadline is long past) does not obviate the need for LEWG to expedite the inclusion for C++23, if so desired.

JeffGarland commented 1 year ago

@jensmaurer LEWG approved for C++23, LWG couldn't finish the wording in time for the cutoff.

jensmaurer commented 1 year ago

Accepted.