[execpol.type] Drop "see below" from is_execution_policy
#7909
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
In order to make `is_execution_policy` satisfity the requirements, an implementation should determine the base class (which is either `true_type` or `false_type`) for each specialization, but not add things into the `{}`.
This PR makes the intent clearer.
Contributor
|
This seems like over-specification to me. The normative wording doesn't require that |
Contributor
Author
I believe [derivation]/2 still allows implementations to use intermediate base classes even if |
Contributor
|
That's true, good point. |
jwakely
reviewed
Jun 19, 2025
Co-authored-by: Jonathan Wakely <[email protected]>
frederick-vs-ja
changed the title
is_execution_policy more preciseis_execution_policy
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In order to make
is_execution_policysatisfity the requirements, an implementation should determine the base class (which is eithertrue_typeorfalse_type) for each specialization, but not add things into the{}.This PR makes the intent clearer.