Skip to content

Conversation

@AlisdairM
Copy link
Contributor

Reorder the entries in the list of implementation limits according to their clause number. This ordering neatly groups related items such as all the preprocessor limits, and segregates library from core language limits. It loses some of the local organisation of the original ordering, such as all parameter and argument list lengths being colocated.

A second commit splits lines that defined several quantities into separate lines that can then be correctly ordered. The secondary benefit is that these quantities may now be updated independently. The new risk is that these quantities that were previously guaranteed to be the same can now vary in a future standard.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer added the cwg Issue must be reviewed by CWG. label Jun 18, 2024
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

CWG should have a say on whether they like it or not.

Reorder the entries in the list of implementation limits according
to their clause number.  This ordering neatly groups related items
such as all the preprocessor limits, and segragates library from
core language limits.  It loses some of the local organization of
the original ordering, such as all parameter and argument list
lengths being colocated.
This change may be semi-normative.  It splits lines that defined
several quantities into separate lines that can then be correctly
ordered.  The secondary benefit is that these quantities may now
be updated independantly.  The new risk is that these quantities
that were previously guaranteed to be the same can now vary in a
future standard.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

cwg Issue must be reviewed by CWG.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants