[Motions 2026 03 cwg 2] P4160R0 DR issues except <long list> by burblebee · Pull Request #8922 · cplusplus/draft

burblebee · 2026-04-06T06:01:58Z

Also fixes cplusplus/nbballot#606
Also fixes cplusplus/nbballot#605
Also fixes cplusplus/nbballot#604

Notes:

CWG2660: Not applied (already fixed by A. Jiang in 35904b9).
CWG2765: Targeted text in [expr.const] moved to [expr.const.core].
CWG2983: The 2nd sentence of [basic.pre]p7 is no longer present.

…ring constant evaluation

…lity

…ory areas

tkoeppe · 2026-04-06T12:55:27Z

Thanks a lot, @burblebee! Is this ready? (The PR is still in "draft" mode.)

source/intro.tex

source/basic.tex

jensmaurer · 2026-04-07T10:59:49Z

CWG2660: Not applied (text rewritten by CWG2813).

While this is superficially true, the offending phase "this parameter of the function (7.5.3 [expr.prim.this]) is initialized with a pointer to the object of the call" still exists post-CWG2813. Please apply CWG2660 to that part.

jensmaurer · 2026-04-07T11:21:32Z

I have added "fixes cplusplus/nbballot" links in the initial comment of this pull request. It would be good to amend the corresponding commits with our usual "Fixes NB ... (C++26 CD)." text (examples all over "git log").

tkoeppe · 2026-04-07T11:43:47Z

There are 32 issues in Motion 2. Issue 3127 makes no changess.

@burblebee What about CWG2660?

burblebee · 2026-04-07T11:44:45Z

CWG2660: Not applied (text rewritten by CWG2813).

While this is superficially true, the offending phase "this parameter of the function (7.5.3 [expr.prim.this]) is initialized with a pointer to the object of the call" still exists post-CWG2813. Please apply CWG2660 to that part.

Sorry, I referenced the wrong commit - the "this" pointer was fixed in by A. Jiang in 35904b9. I'll fix my note.

tkoeppe · 2026-04-07T11:52:57Z

Ah, great, thanks!

burblebee · 2026-04-07T12:08:00Z

I have added "fixes cplusplus/nbballot" links in the initial comment of this pull request. It would be good to amend the corresponding commits with our usual "Fixes NB ... (C++26 CD)." text (examples all over "git log").

Sorry, I totally missed those! The way they're formatted is too subtle; they look like part of the date. I seem to remember them being a lot more obvious.

I see - we now have a link where we used to have big, bold, black letters, right? The link is nice - thanks for doing that.

Can we do something to make the NB issues more obvious in the future? Maybe add a new, separate field for them, further away from the date? And, if possible, use a big bold font for the text of the link?

jensmaurer · 2026-04-07T12:43:58Z

Sorry, I totally missed those! The way they're formatted is too subtle; they look like part of the date. I seem to remember them being a lot more obvious.

We used to have links in former times, too; I've used the existing XML machinery in the issues list (the deep links to the C++26 NB comments don't actually work). Compare these examples:

C++26: https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/3171.html
C++23: https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2659.html
C++14: https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/1786.html
(maybe we didn't create core issues for NB comments in between, and instead used separate omnibus papers)

Fixes NB US 14-029 (C++26 CD).

…template matching

Fixes NB US 17-030, FR 003-031 (C++26 CD).

…implementation"

burblebee · 2026-04-07T13:09:49Z

Sorry, I totally missed those! The way they're formatted is too subtle; they look like part of the date. I seem to remember them being a lot more obvious.

We used to have links in former times, too; I've used the existing XML machinery in the issues list (the links to the C++26 don't actually work). Compare these examples:

C++26: https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/3171.html

C++23: https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2659.html

C++14: https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/1786.html
(maybe we didn't create core issues for NB comments in between, and instead used separate omnibus papers)

Thanks for those references, I can see what made the NB issues more obvious - they were in the 1st column and separated from the usual fields by a newline.

jensmaurer · 2026-04-07T14:56:06Z

I can see what made the NB issues more obvious - they were in the 1st column and separated from the usual fields by a newline.

Again, I fail to see a material visual difference between "this round" and "last round":

tkoeppe · 2026-04-07T20:07:55Z

Thanks Dawn and Jens for sorting out the NB comment associations!

burblebee · 2026-04-07T22:21:54Z

I can see what made the NB issues more obvious - they were in the 1st column and separated from the usual fields by a newline.

Again, I fail to see a material visual difference between "this round" and "last round":

The browser I'm using (Safari) shows something very different for "this round" - the NB comments appear directly left of the Date: entry. Whereas I do see what you see for "last round".

I'd embed an image of what I see but I don't know how you did that (neat!) - hopefully you can see what I mean from the following:

3058. "Program point" is not defined

Section: 6.5.1  [[basic.lookup.general](https://wg21.link/basic.lookup.general)]     Status: ready     Submitter: Alisdair Meredith     Date: 2025-08-13 [N5028 comment US 14-029](http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2025/n5028.pdf#US14-029)
(From submission [#749](https://github.com/cplusplus/CWG/issues/749).)

There is no definition for the term "program point".

For now, did I find them all? I only saw 2 issues with NB comments in this motion.

FYI - I tried in FireFox and Brave (a Chrome-like browser) and don't see those extra newlines that you see, so I guess it's a Mac issue?? Interesting... Just looked this up and apparently a known bug. Now that I know I'll try to remember to look in the future. Sorry to bother you!!!

burblebee added 12 commits April 4, 2026 13:43

CWG2609 Padding in class types

9081288

CWG2744 Multiple objects of the same type at the same address

e3568c8

CWG2765 Address comparisons between potentially non-unique objects du…

eb45559

…ring constant evaluation

CWG2799 Inheriting default constructors

c0a95fd

CWG2947 Limiting macro expansion in pp-module

8b67856

CWG2966 Alignment and value representation of std::nullptr_t

280c60d

CWG2976 Transferring control out of a function

351866d

CWG2983 Non-type template parameters are not variables

273398d

CWG2992 Labels do not have names

37be8a3

CWG3010 constexpr placement-new should require transparent replaceabi…

5caf7ef

…lity

CWG3029 Confusing note about ordinary character types for aligned mem…

d88021f

…ory areas

CWG3035 Lambda expressions in anonymous unions

509f565

eisenwave added this to the post-2026-03 milestone Apr 6, 2026

tkoeppe reviewed Apr 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

source/intro.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

tkoeppe reviewed Apr 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

source/basic.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

tkoeppe reviewed Apr 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

source/basic.tex Show resolved Hide resolved

burblebee marked this pull request as ready for review April 7, 2026 10:23

burblebee added 5 commits April 7, 2026 05:44

CWG3058 "Program point" is not defined

c19df86

Fixes NB US 14-029 (C++26 CD).

CWG3125 Token convertibility requirement in #if

6e4aaee

CWG3126 A module import needs a header-name as a token

3b7c41e

CWG3128 Potentially-throwing unevaluated operands

d27a004

CWG3129 Clarify which floating-point-literals are valid

cdaa725

burblebee added 11 commits April 7, 2026 05:44

CWG3130 Naming function members of anonymous unions

ff55285

CWG3132 Unclear disambiguation rule for condition

57120fc

CWG3133 Cv-qualified types in built-in operator candidates

7a53be5

CWG3136 Constant expressions of type void

094244c

CWG3142 Possible expansions of __LINE__ changing over time

c486843

CWG3148 Definition of "user-declared" special member function

35ed3ee

CWG3151 Closure types that are final

8359980

CWG3153 Immediate-escalating defaulted comparison

93bef83

CWG3155 Escalation of virtual functions

ce4ef37

CWG3156 Handling of deleted functions in unevaluated lambda-captures

d112df8

CWG3157 Missing handling of operator new[] for deallocation function …

750418c

…template matching

burblebee force-pushed the motions-2026-03-cwg-2 branch from 135ab7d to 325d3e8 Compare April 7, 2026 12:45

burblebee added 4 commits April 7, 2026 05:48

CWG3171 Codify the strong ownership for modules

72efcd9

Fixes NB US 17-030, FR 003-031 (C++26 CD).

CWG3173 Remove misleading footnote about as-if rule

c9a5354

FIXUP CWG2609: Fix index and location of definition "property of the …

18db167

…implementation"

FIXUP CWG2744: Add missing comma

3a5222d

burblebee force-pushed the motions-2026-03-cwg-2 branch from 325d3e8 to 3a5222d Compare April 7, 2026 12:50

Conversation

burblebee commented Apr 6, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

tkoeppe commented Apr 6, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jensmaurer commented Apr 7, 2026

Uh oh!

jensmaurer commented Apr 7, 2026

Uh oh!

tkoeppe commented Apr 7, 2026

Uh oh!

burblebee commented Apr 7, 2026

Uh oh!

tkoeppe commented Apr 7, 2026

Uh oh!

burblebee commented Apr 7, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jensmaurer commented Apr 7, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

burblebee commented Apr 7, 2026

Uh oh!

jensmaurer commented Apr 7, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

tkoeppe commented Apr 7, 2026

Uh oh!

burblebee commented Apr 7, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

burblebee commented Apr 6, 2026 •

edited

Loading

burblebee commented Apr 7, 2026 •

edited

Loading

jensmaurer commented Apr 7, 2026 •

edited

Loading

jensmaurer commented Apr 7, 2026 •

edited

Loading

burblebee commented Apr 7, 2026 •

edited

Loading