Open wg21bot opened 2 years ago
The current revision does not appear to have wording.
Planning to add wording to R1 if this gets positive feedback.
Also r0 incorrectly says it was published in 2021. It was published in 2022
@achristensen07 I'd add wording now if you can. We can probably fast track it if there's wording and implementation experience.
@inbal2l and @cor3ntin: If we don't have a revision with wording, the initial mailing list review should just be for feedback and sentiment - no motion to forward directly to Library Evolution.
Mailing list review 27-June - 13 July 2022
6 participants
A quick summary: This feature seems useful as multiple people have expressed interest for it, however there is consensus that the author should,at least, explore more generic solutions, namely
mp_find
in disguise, maybe we should explore that, up to and including restarting the conversation about the mp proposalWe want to see this paper on the mailing list again, with these questions discussed in the paper.
P2527R1 std::variant_alternative_index and std::tuple_element_index (Alex Christensen)
2022-11-09 13:00 to 15:00 UTC-10 Kona Library Evolution Minutes
Champion: n/a (Fabio Fracassi presenting)
Chair: Fabio Fracassi
Short discussion
Paper author produces a revision with the help of a library wordsmith. The revised paper can then go to LWG.
__Poll 2.5: Send [P2527R1] variant_alternative_index And variant_alternative_index_v to Library Working Group for C++26, classified as an improvement of an existing feature ([P0592R4] bucket 2 item).__
Strongly Favor | Weakly Favor | Neutral | Weakly Against | Strongly Against |
---|---|---|---|---|
8 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
Outcome: Consensus in favor.
P2527R2 std::variant_alternative_index and std::tuple_element_index (Alex Christensen)
P2527R3 std::variant_alternative_index and std::tuple_element_index (Alex Christensen)
LWG ended up skipping this paper in Tokyo -- will see it in St. Louis.
Author indicates that there design issues that need to go back to LEWG after questions from LWG in Kona. Adding the LEWG tags.
LWG comments from Kona (the R3 revision also includes this info):
Poll: do we want LEWG consider SFINAE-friendliness of tuple_element_index rather than a hard error? F |
A | N |
---|---|---|
6 | 1 | 4 |
Author is against
I think it is worth sending that back
Poll: do want LEWG to consider other tuple-like types? F |
A | N |
---|---|---|
3 | 0 | 6 |
P2527R0 std::variant_alternative_index and std::variant_alternative_index_v (Alex Christensen)