On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 13:55, Jonathan Wakely <cxx@kayari.org> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 13:14, Barry Revzin via SG10
<sg10@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
>
> Hi SG10,
>
> What does the group think of the following papers.
>
> "Safe integral comparisons"
> http://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21prague/StrawPolls/P0586R2.html
> > In [version.syn] add the feature test macro __cpp_lib_cmp_equal // also defined in <utility>.
> The paper introduces 7 functions, one of which is cmp_equal. Should the macro be __cpp_lib_safe_integral_comparisons?

No, the word "safe" is toxic. "integral_comparison_functions" seems
better to me.

> "Improving the Return Value of Erase-Like Algorithms II:Freeerase/eraseif"
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1115r3.pdf
> This paper suggests no new feature test macro, but affects the return type of some functions introduced by the free erase/erase_if paper, should it bump the __cpp_lib_erase_if macro value?


I've just realised it should be integer comparison functions, not integral comparison functions. char and bool are integral types, but not supported by these functions. Only the signed and unsigned integer types are supported.