Skip to content

Conversation

@AlisdairM
Copy link
Contributor

@AlisdairM AlisdairM commented Jun 22, 2025

@AlisdairM AlisdairM force-pushed the apply_p2843_ub_in_preprocessor branch from ac8c09e to c35929a Compare June 24, 2025 19:14
@AlisdairM AlisdairM requested a review from eisenwave June 24, 2025 19:22
@AlisdairM AlisdairM force-pushed the apply_p2843_ub_in_preprocessor branch from c35929a to 184a5c3 Compare June 24, 2025 20:01
@AlisdairM
Copy link
Contributor Author

@eisenwave Rewrote history to correctly handle removing the circular reference as a subsequent edit. Undid the paragraph breakdown, replacing with the single semantic line break that you suggested.

@AlisdairM AlisdairM requested a review from eisenwave June 24, 2025 20:03
@eisenwave
Copy link
Member

eisenwave commented Jun 24, 2025

That looks about right now, but the commit for adding a semantic line break isn't really necessary. That could just be a drive-by fix in the main commit since it doesn't alter the rendered output in any way.

I'm fine with all the other stuff, but I suspect @tkoeppe may want that last commit yoinked out.

@tkoeppe tkoeppe force-pushed the apply_p2843_ub_in_preprocessor branch 2 times, most recently from 53bcb76 to c0763e4 Compare July 14, 2025 22:32
Editorial notes:
* [cpp.replace] Removed circular reference
* Wording reconciled with resolution of CWG3015
@tkoeppe tkoeppe force-pushed the apply_p2843_ub_in_preprocessor branch from c0763e4 to d9555c6 Compare July 14, 2025 22:40
@tkoeppe tkoeppe merged commit 06614c2 into cplusplus:main Jul 14, 2025
2 checks passed
@AlisdairM AlisdairM deleted the apply_p2843_ub_in_preprocessor branch July 17, 2025 01:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

3 participants