[Development] Requesting Feature Freeze Exception for C++20 comparison

[Thiago Macieira]

On Sunday, 4 June 2023 08:24:14 PDT Ivan Solovev via Development wrote:
> Like I wrote, I generally consider this task done, except for the naming
> issues. I have an impression that we will be able to come to an agreement
> in a reasonable time frame.
> 
> However, if you think that there are more issues, let's discuss them and see
> what we can do to fix them. I totally agree that we shouldn't merge
> something that is not 100% ready.

Your currently-pushed work only tested the four datetime classes. What else is 
there? Are there any pitfalls we need to know about?

I named two dozen comparable classes recently. Have you got any unpushed work 
that shows how those classes would be adapted to the spaceship? Are there more 
classes that are orderable and would benefit?

The other problem is I want to take a second, thorough look at your #ifdefs 
for C++20. I have a feeling some of the changing return types are a recipe for 
binary compatibility problems, if not in our own code, then in code that uses 
our code. I need to sit down and think about whether this is a valid scenario 
or not.

And unfortunately, the software I work on for $DAYJOB also had feature freeze 
on Friday, so I am now busy with its release procedures and thus I don't think 
I'll be able to give the necessary time this feature requires for at least one 
week.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5152 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20230604/1b3e0843/attachment.bin>