From 31d940ac41a8e78292a23114c76aaf693d1ee8af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: slymz Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 23:03:35 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] updated feedback commments --- concat.lwg.feedback.md | 9 +++++++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/concat.lwg.feedback.md b/concat.lwg.feedback.md index fb1e85e..02903c9 100644 --- a/concat.lwg.feedback.md +++ b/concat.lwg.feedback.md @@ -82,8 +82,10 @@ synopsis) after zip and cartesian_product was in. Wants to make sure we don't define it again. (But we don't. So...) - Hui: Maybe they meant that we should add `Const` as template parameter for concepts like `concat-random-access` and `concat-bidirectional`, like what they did for `all-random-access` etc. So that we don't repeat the `maybe_const` in the every usage of `concat-random-access`? What do you think? - - Levent: Sounds right! Also the naming can be more consistent with https://eel.is/c++draft/range.cartesian#view, + - Levent: Makes sense. Agree Also the naming can be more consistent with https://eel.is/c++draft/range.cartesian#view, `concat-is-random-access` instead of `concat-random-access` etc. + - Levent: Also, instead of `Rs` as the name of the pack, we should use `Views`. But careful if we really mean View and not Range + in all these. - [TODO] do we want to avoid emplacing ranges we don't need to use? - Hui: Good point. I think this refers to `advance_fwd` and `advance_bwd`. Maybe we can do something smarter. @@ -105,6 +107,8 @@ - Hui: I think this refers to all the preconditions about variant's valueless state. It is good idea but I don't know how to do it. I mean, how to specify what operations are allowed and what are not. Need prio examples. - Levent: We don't have any operations that are allowed. (no?) - Hui: Well the generated operations like the destructor and the assignment operators should be allowed. (no?) + - Right. And for the friend members it gets tricky to rely only on front matter. I actually attempted a version, but + it looked uglier in the end. Not sure about this one. - [TODO] I think the authors need to think about iter_swap and provide rational @@ -112,7 +116,8 @@ - Levent: Let's just remove it. - Hui: I thought Tim brought another issue that even the default behaviour (without our specialisation) of `iter_swap` is still problematic for `concat(strings, string_views)`. https://godbolt.org/z/49esvec96 - + - Slightly modified example: https://godbolt.org/z/na8haa3Ex + # Full transcript - JG: this is for C++26