[locale.categories] Promote remaining static const data members to constexpr
#6767
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
wg21bot
added
the
needs rebase
frederick-vs-ja
force-pushed
the
locale-static-constexpr
branch
2 times, most recently
from
574ffea to
c339cad
Compare
|
Rebased & force-pushed. @tkoeppe |
frederick-vs-ja
force-pushed
the
locale-static-constexpr
branch
from
c339cad to
217dc26
Compare
|
@jwakely, @jensmaurer -- what do you think? It's effectively a no-op, but it does sort of change the normative text. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See also #4862. After the changes there's no static const data members that are guaranteed to be usable in constant expressions but not constexpr.
The changes seemingly require these static data members to be implicitly inline variables, but [contents]/1 has already required an implementation to provide definitions for them, so the difference between plain
constandconstexpris unobservable.The last remain pieces are static data members of
ctype_base- it's not strictly required that these members are required to be usable in constant expressions sincemaskmay be a class type. LWG4037 is opened for this. Edit: LWG4037 has been resolved.