Skip to content

CWG Poll 3: P2096R2 Generalized wording for partial specializations #4368

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Nov 26, 2020

Conversation

jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

@jensmaurer jensmaurer added this to the post-2020-11 milestone Nov 12, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

@burblebee burblebee left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just 2 minor oversights...

@jensmaurer jensmaurer requested a review from burblebee November 24, 2020 18:22
@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Nov 25, 2020

@burblebee: could you kindly take another look and see if your comments have been addressed?

jensmaurer and others added 3 commits November 26, 2020 12:03
This follows the generalization of the notion of "partial
specialization" from P2096R2, which made the old labels somewhat
inaccurate, and was recommended as an option by that paper.
@tkoeppe tkoeppe force-pushed the motions-2020-11-cwg-3 branch from d7bad8c to 2625d87 Compare November 26, 2020 12:05
@tkoeppe tkoeppe merged commit e66f7ce into master Nov 26, 2020
@jensmaurer jensmaurer deleted the motions-2020-11-cwg-3 branch June 14, 2021 21:26
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.

[2020-11 CWG Motion 3] P2096R2 Generalized wording for partial specializations P2096 Generalized wording for partial specializations
3 participants