-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
P2806 R3 do expressions #1462
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
This was discussed in EWG in the February 10th, 2023 evening session in Issaquah. The following poll was taken. EWG encourages more work in the direction of do-statement-expressions as presented in D2806R0.
Result: Consensus |
P2806R0 do expressions (Barry Revzin, Bruno Cardoso Lopez, Zach Laine, Michael Park) |
P2806R1 do expressions (Barry Revzin, Bruno Cardoso Lopez, Zach Laine, Michael Park) |
P2806R1 was discussed in EWG in the April, 27th, 2023 Telecon. The following polls were taken: EWG encourages more work in the direction of do-expressions as presented in P2806R1.
Result: Consensus EWG prefers the "result" of the do-expression be 'last statement', ala GCC statement-expressions, prohibiting early-return from a do-expression.
Result: Consensus Against |
Barry tells me this needs an update. |
P2806R2 do expressions (Barry Revzin, Bruno Cardoso Lopez, Zach Laine, Michael Park) |
Seen by EWG in Tokyo on Friday P2806R2 do expressions: EWG encourages author to explore design with anti-captures.
Not consensus. |
P2806R3 do expressions (Barry Revzin, Bruno Cardoso Lopez, Zach Laine, Michael Park) |
D2806R0 do statement-expressions (Barry Revzin)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: