CWG parts of P2996R13 Reflection for C++26 #8008
Conversation
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
|
Fixed link, thanks. |
|
We could certainly move all the commits into a single PR and the test and review that again. Let's wait for a first round of reviews on both current PRs to settle, then we'll take it from there. |
|
@tkoeppe by the way, you've put the milestone date for 2025-06 as 06-31. Is that actually correct? I was under the impression that we would want to have the updated working draft in the post-Sofia mailing, if not sooner so that the ISO review process can start ASAP. |
|
@Eisenwave Sorry, no idea, I don't recall making that label or how it was made. Don't worry about it. We're not going to stop the process because of what a label says. |
|
That milestone is by me. I've moved the date to 07-15. |
| If the candidates are denoted by a \grammarterm{splice-expression}, | ||
| then $S$ shall not be a block scope. | ||
| \item | ||
| The default arguments used in the call \tcode{C} are |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As discussed offline, probably should have been "the call to C".
Feel free to cherry-pick into #8004 once @Eisenwave is done with the library part.