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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
[linalg.conj.conjugated] Rearrange to match P3050R3 #7506
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
[linalg.conj.conjugated] Rearrange to match P3050R3 #7506
Changes from 1 commit
ffa49c8
220a3ec
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How is this editorially-obviously related to the struck text talking about
conj(E)
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You need to read the preceding paragraph too. In R2 (as applied to the draft) the text in p2 talking about conj(E) was duplicating exactly the condition in 1.3, which was just unnecessarily verbose and repetitive.
We don't need to repeat exactly the two conditions in 1.2 and 1.3 as 2.2 and 2.3, we can just say that if the type
A
determined in p2 isAccessor
, then we returna
.So this is replacing everything in p2 that repeats conditions from p1 by specifying the return value in terms of what was determined in p1.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In other words, previously we had:
(1.2)
Accessor
ifremove_cvref_t<ElementType>
is an arithmetic type; otherwise,(1.3)
Accessor
if the expressionconj(E)
is not valid for any subexpression E whose typeT
is expression-equivalent toremove_cvref_t<ElementType>
with overload resolution performed in a context that includes the declarationtemplate<class T> conj(const T&) = delete;
; otherwise,and
(2.2)
a
ifremove_cvref_t<ElementType>
is an arithmetic type; otherwise,(2.3)
a
if the expressionconj(E)
is not valid for any subexpression E whose typeT
is expression-equivalent toremove_cvref_t<ElementType>
with overload resolution performed in a context that includes the declarationtemplate<class T> conj(const T&) = delete;
; otherwise,But now p2 just says we return
a
if it's already the right type and doesn't need to be transformed.