Focus on the not-yet-implemented features: remove most details about the
already-implemented C++20 stuff, list out the major C++23 additions.
Details
- Reviewers
ldionne philnik huixie90 Mordante - Group Reviewers
Restricted Project - Commits
- rG2c5a548b5343: [libc++][ranges][NFC] Revamp the Ranges status page
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
Thanks for improving the status pages!
libcxx/docs/Status/Cxx2bPapers.csv | ||
---|---|---|
65 | This will be a merge conflict, the status is partial https://libcxx.llvm.org/Status/Cxx2b.html | |
libcxx/docs/Status/RangesIssues.csv | ||
0 | We indeed removed issues from the status pages in the past. I don't mind to keep them. Looking at the huge list of issues I can imagine tracking them on one page is easier; even when it duplicates entries. (Something tells me C++26 will add new LWG issues for ranges.) | |
libcxx/docs/Status/RangesPapers.csv | ||
51 ↗ | (On Diff #470358) | This is not true; parts have already landed ;-) I already track this on the format status page. (https://libcxx.llvm.org/Status/Format.html) |
Drive-by comments for consistency
libcxx/docs/Status/Cxx20Issues.csv | ||
---|---|---|
100 | It might also be worth to linkify all those papers (as done elsewhere) | |
107 | ||
206 | Always been mildly bothered by this inconsistency. | |
libcxx/docs/Status/Cxx2bIssues.csv | ||
37 | ||
76 | Missing ,"" at the end (might work without it, but still cleaner to have right number of columns) | |
178 |
libcxx/docs/Status/Cxx20Issues.csv | ||
---|---|---|
100 | Agreed, but I'd rather do it in a separate patch and keep this focused on Ranges. (Or feel free to send in the patch if you'd like) | |
206 | Same -- agreed this should be fixed, but I'd rather keep this patch smaller. Would you like to do a patch with the fixes you mentioned? I can help you with generating the docs to check the change locally. | |
libcxx/docs/Status/Cxx2bIssues.csv | ||
37 | Thanks! | |
76 | I'm not sure -- the existing formatting seems to always have an empty column for the status row and the first released version raw, but not for the label row. I followed that for consistency, but I presume either works. | |
libcxx/docs/Status/Cxx2bPapers.csv | ||
65 | Thanks! Should I add you as an assignee on this in the RangesMajorFeatures.csv list? (it's primarily to make sure we don't accidentally duplicate work) | |
libcxx/docs/Status/RangesIssues.csv | ||
0 | Honestly, I'm torn about this. Neither keeping two large lists in sync (when they are almost guaranteed to diverge) nor having to scoop around a huge list of papers searching for a certain tag seems great. I wish it were possible to import only a subset of a CSV table, filtered by a tag, but I'd be surprised if it were a supported option. After discussing this with @ldionne, I decided to drop the duplication. IIUC, we will switch to using GitHub issues to track these at some point, so ultimately it's not super important how we approach this. | |
libcxx/docs/Status/RangesPapers.csv | ||
1 ↗ | (On Diff #470358) | Removed now. |
51 ↗ | (On Diff #470358) | This is great! And thank you for the heads-up. |
After discussing this with @ldionne, I decided to drop the duplication. IIUC, we will switch to using GitHub issues to track these at some point, so ultimately it's not super important how we approach this.
+1 for doing this in GitHub
I recall we discussed that in the past but it required GitHub projects to be enabled for LLVM.
libcxx/docs/Status/Cxx2bPapers.csv | ||
---|---|---|
65 | Yes please assign it to me. |
I'm also +1 for using GitHub issues to track the work instead. It has a lot of benefits, including visibility for external contributors who may not be aware of the status pages.
It might also be worth to linkify all those papers (as done elsewhere)