... after LWG-3549.
Details
- Reviewers
Mordante • Quuxplusone - Group Reviewers
Restricted Project - Commits
- rGb8d38e8b4fca: [libcxx][test] view_interface need not derive from view_base
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.utility/view.interface/view.interface.pass.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
34–35 | This is late-breaking C++20, right? |
libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.utility/view.interface/view.interface.pass.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
34–35 | I'd prefer one of two different options:
Any appetite for implementing LWG3549? If not, I volunteer. |
libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.utility/view.interface/view.interface.pass.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
34–35 |
I suspect I speak for us all when I say: go for it! :) |
libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.utility/view.interface/view.interface.pass.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
34–35 | I'm not interested in implementing LWG3549 (for a second time =)), I'm only motivated to have the test not apply non-standard requirements when stdlib=msvc. How about if we split the work: I'll remove this test line, and you can implement LWG3549? |
libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.utility/view.interface/view.interface.pass.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
34–35 | @CaseyCarter seems reasonable! https://reviews.llvm.org/D117714 is almost done for implementing LWG3539. |
This is late-breaking C++20, right?
If so, just delete this line (and the following blank line): there's no point testing something that we (1) shouldn't do and (2) presumably plan to change.