Closed wg21bot closed 1 year ago
EWG saw this paper in today's telecon. Minutes
There is a problem to be solved with range-based for loops and lifetime of temporaries. | SF | F | N | A | SA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
17 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
A solution which might break existing code (such as the lock example Nico showed) is acceptable. | SF | F | N | A | SA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 | 15 | 7 | 4 | 0 |
A solution which proposes a new kind of loop is worth exploring. | SF | F | N | A | SA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 6 | 10 | 8 | 3 |
Adopt the wording proposed by Jens into P2012, and poll it at the next EWG quarterly polling period. | SF | F | N | A | SA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
5 | 9 | 5 | 7 | 0 |
For future polls: assuming we go with Jens’ proposed wording, this is a defect going back to C++11, and want CWG to treat this as a defect report on prior Standards.
P2012R1 Fix the range-based for loop, Rev1 (Nicolai Josuttis, Victor Zverovich, Arthur O'Dwyer, Filipe Mulonde)
Seen at today's EWG telecon:
POLL: send P2012r2 to EWG electronic polling for inclusion in C++23, not as a DR.
SF | F | N | A | SA |
---|---|---|---|---|
7 | 7 | 4 | 6 | 1 |
Result: no consensus.
P2012R2 Fix the range-based for loop, Rev2 (Nicolai Josuttis, Victor Zverovich, Arthur O'Dwyer, Filipe Mulonde)
Subsumed by https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/1316
P2012R0 Fix the range-based for loop, Rev0 (Nicolai Josuttis, Victor Zverovich, Arthur O'Dwyer, Filipe Mulonde)