P2689R2: LEWG review 2023/04/04
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- HTML
- Stars
- 29
- Forks
- 26
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
@crtrott @dalg24 @nliber
It's possible, using the current wording in terms of an exposition-only atomic-ref-bound, to find and use the atomic-ref-bound class template. Just because users can't name it, doesn't mean that it isn't visible. This would hinder other implementations (e.g., separate classes for each memory order).
LEWG suggested adding this discussion to the paper, to make the history clear and explain why we didn't expose the name of this exposition-only class template.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by locating the P2689R2 paper and review its current wording around the exposition-only atomic-ref-bound class template. Add the LEWG discussion explaining why the name should not be exposed and why implementations may use separate classes for each memory order. Done means the paper records this history and rationale clearly.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cpp
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 2/5
- Estimated time
- 1-3 hours
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 45/100