P2971 R2 Implication for C++

[wg21bot]

P2971R0 Implication for C++ (Walter E Brown)

[wg21bot]

P2971R1 Implication for C++ (Walter E Brown)

[erichkeane]

EWGI discussed P2971R1 during the Monday Afternoon session in Kona. The following poll was taken:

Given the committee's limited time, EWGI believes P2971R1 is sufficiently developed and motivated to forward to EWG.

SF	F	N	A	SA
6	3	0	0	0

Result: Consensus.

[jfbastien]

EWG reviewed this on Kona on Monday.

Poll: we encourage further work along the direction of P2971R1 “Implication for C++”.	SF	F	N	A	SA
3	5	10	2	1

Not consensus.

The author was given feedback on how to increase consensus, I expect the paper to come back.

[inbal2l]

Library Evolution Meeting Kona 2023-11-09

P2971R1: Implication for C++

2023-11-09 Library Evolution Kona 2023 Meeting Minutes

Chair: Fabio Fracassi / Inbal Levi Champion: Walter E. Brown Minute Taker: Nevin Liber

Summary

POLL: We agree with adding the implication operator to the exposition-only concept boolean-testable.

SF	F	N	A	SA
10	13	1	0	0

Attendance: 28 IP + 4 R

# of Authors: 1

Authors’ position: SF

Outcome: Strong consensus in favour

POLL: We agree with adding a function object logical_implication (tentative name, akin logical_and, `logical_or’).

SF	F	N	A	SA
9	12	3	0	0

Attendance: 28 IP + 4 R

# of Authors: 1

Authors’ position: SF

Outcome: Strong consensus in favour

Next Steps

The paper was sent back to EWG, with no concerns from the library side. If the paper passes EWG we will see it again and take a poll on forwarding the Library side to LWG (to be confirmed with an electronic poll).

[wg21bot]

P2971R2 Implication for C++ (Walter E Brown)

[jfbastien]

Discussed in EWG in St Louis:

Poll: P2971R2 — Implication for C++, forward to LEWG and CWG for inclusion in C++26.

| SF | F | N | A | SA | | 7 | 6 | 9 | 5 | 4 |

Not consensus, but feedback was given to the author. Some of the pushback is worry about token conflict with pattern matching.