Skip to content

[2026-03 LWG Motion 15] P3795R2 Miscellaneous Reflection Cleanup#8910

Merged
tkoeppe merged 3 commits intocplusplus:mainfrom
eisenwave:motions-2026-03-lwg-15
Apr 19, 2026
Merged

[2026-03 LWG Motion 15] P3795R2 Miscellaneous Reflection Cleanup#8910
tkoeppe merged 3 commits intocplusplus:mainfrom
eisenwave:motions-2026-03-lwg-15

Conversation

@eisenwave
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@eisenwave eisenwave commented Apr 2, 2026

Fixes #8849
Fixes NB US 42-078, US 85-150, US 122-184, US 128-192, US 95-202, and US 131-195 (C++26 CD).

Also fixes cplusplus/papers#2401
Also fixes https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/654
Also fixes https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/729
Also fixes https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/753
Also fixes https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/761
Also fixes https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/771
Also fixes https://github.com/cplusplus/nbballot/issues/764
Also fixes cplusplus/nbballot#776

@eisenwave
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

eisenwave commented Apr 2, 2026

I'm confused by the seemingly incorrectly cited text underneath access_context::current(). The paper believes that some parts are in separate paragraphs that are actually all down in Remarks.

Maybe the paper is relative to an old draft.

UPDATE: Yeah, seems to be relative to an old draft. The PR in that area should be correct, and the difference in base draft doesn't seem to cause any problem.

@eisenwave
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Also ... I guess we're changing all this stuff and adding new functions, but we're not bumping __cpp_lib_reflection? Weird.

@brevzin would love some feedback on the issues I'm having here.

@brevzin
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

brevzin commented Apr 2, 2026

Also ... I guess we're changing all this stuff and adding new functions, but we're not bumping __cpp_lib_reflection? Weird.

Yeah, let's bump both __cpp_impl_reflection (for annotations on function parameters) and __cpp_lib_reflection (for all the rest). There's another paper at this meeting that also bumps __cpp_lib_reflection, but that one just adds one function, so I think fine to assign both the same value. @jwakely, sound good?

@eisenwave eisenwave added this to the post-2026-03 milestone Apr 12, 2026
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@eisenwave , this also fixes US 100-207. Please amend the commit description.

@eisenwave eisenwave force-pushed the motions-2026-03-lwg-15 branch 2 times, most recently from 47640b1 to 1fc9a76 Compare April 19, 2026 07:25
@eisenwave
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

this also fixes US 100-207. Please amend the commit description.

Done. I've also resolved the merge conflict between

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Apr 19, 2026

I'll start reviewing+merging this now; if you have any further change requests or comments, please just leave a comment and don't change the patch. Thanks!

@tkoeppe tkoeppe force-pushed the motions-2026-03-lwg-15 branch 3 times, most recently from bf7b152 to 7a5d700 Compare April 19, 2026 13:00
@tkoeppe tkoeppe force-pushed the motions-2026-03-lwg-15 branch from 7a5d700 to b69252c Compare April 19, 2026 13:12
@tkoeppe tkoeppe merged commit f0bd280 into cplusplus:main Apr 19, 2026
2 checks passed
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.

[2026-03 LWG Motion 15] P3795R2 Miscellaneous Reflection Cleanup P3795 R1 Miscellaneous Reflection Cleanup

4 participants