P3050R2 Fix C++26 by optimizing linalg::conjugated for noncomplex value types #7493
Conversation
tkoeppe
force-pushed
the
motions-2024-11-lwg-10
branch
2 times, most recently
from
aeb4319 to
f4e35e8
Compare
| \tcode{Accessor} if the expression \tcode{conj(E)} is not valid for any subexpression \tcode{E} | ||
| whose type \tcode{T} is expression-equivalent to \tcode{remove_cvref_t<ElementType>} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A type cannot be expression-equivalent. I'm not sure what the paper's intent actually was here, E is simply not defined well. Should it really be an rvalue, as this wording kinda implies? That doesn't seem right to me. I think we need input from @mhoemmen or LWG.
This also introduces two types T, the one that is the type of E and the template parameter of the conj poison pill, which is a bit confusing, but that problem is already present throughout [linalg.helpers].
| \tcode{Accessor} if the expression \tcode{conj(E)} is not valid for any subexpression \tcode{E} | |
| whose type \tcode{T} is expression-equivalent to \tcode{remove_cvref_t<ElementType>} | |
| \tcode{Accessor} if the expression \tcode{conj(E)} is not valid for any subexpression \tcode{E} | |
| of a type similar to \tcode{remove_cvref_t<ElementType>} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I opened #7494 for the T reuse.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do let's follow up asap, but I'll merge the motion application as is for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mhoemmen in case you missed this one (I think I spelled your username wrong at first and I don't think github resends emails after comments are edited)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jwakely FYI, this issue refers to R2, but it was R3 that was approved by LWG on 2024-10-25. That might have wording differences.
…ue types Editorial notes: * The editing instructions in the paper are rather unclear. We have applied the wording of the paper and replaced the original wording entirely, since the paper does not indicate deletions and insertions. Future versions of this draft may start rejecting instructions of such deficiency. * The leading words "the value" have been inserted in a "Returns:" element consisting of a list where the list items would otherwise have started with a codeblock (which does not get formatted correctly). * The feature test macro value is bumpted to 202412, since the previous motion (P3222R0) already uses 202411.
tkoeppe
force-pushed
the
motions-2024-11-lwg-10
branch
from
f4e35e8 to
1fa2078
Compare
Fixes cplusplus/papers#1719.
Fixes #7422.