Skip to content

[exec.snd.concepts] Remove redundant bool casting #7777

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

hewillk
Copy link
Contributor

@hewillk hewillk commented Mar 25, 2025

No description provided.

@frederick-vs-ja
Copy link
Contributor

frederick-vs-ja commented Mar 25, 2025

I don't think we can editorially simplify this. The bool casting is not redundant as it makes the constraint atomic, which was clearly intended according to P2300R10 [execution.snd.concepts].

In some early revisions of P2300, the constraint was achieved by a variable template, which made it atomic. See also cplusplus/sender-receiver@1600739.

@hewillk
Copy link
Contributor Author

hewillk commented Mar 25, 2025

I don't think we can editorially simplify this. The bool casting is not redundant as it makes the constraint atomic, which was clearly intended according to P2300R10 [execution.snd.concepts].

In some early revisions of P2300, the constraint was achieved by a variable template, which made it atomic. See also cplusplus/sender-receiver@1600739.

Nice historical review.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Not an editorial change and apparently not even an LWG issue, given the design intent in the applied paper. Please write a paper to LEWG with rationale if you want a change here.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer closed this Mar 25, 2025
@hewillk hewillk deleted the main-sender branch March 25, 2025 07:15
@hewillk
Copy link
Contributor Author

hewillk commented Mar 25, 2025

P2300R10 [execution.snd.concepts]

So, Would it be better to add a note comment // atomic constraint ([temp.constr.atomic]) like the original wording?which can prevent subsequent misunderstandings or pull requests for this part from other users.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants