[2025-06 LWG Motion 34] P3552R3 Add a Coroutine Task #8032

dietmarkuehl · 2025-06-29T16:15:06Z

I have applied the changes for P3552r3 (Add a Coroutine Task Type). Compared to the actual text of P3552r3
I made some [I think editorial] changes:

added with_error and change_coroutine_scheduler declarations to the synopsis before task; they are in the detailed description but not in the synopsis (possibly they should only be in the synopsis) as there is no further description)
inconsistent default template arguments for the ctor in the class declaration (allocator and the later description (allocator); the wording consistently uses allocator
added "of the" to a sentence about the type of a completion datum: "... defines the type of the value completion datum"
the use of the template parameter of the nested type state is Rcvr which has two problems: 1. the ctor also uses the name Rcvr for its template parameter 2. the class stores an object of type R which is the receiver named rcvr the most logic fix is to use Rcvr consistently for the state and change the name for the ctor's parameter:
1. change the ctor template parameter type to use R
2. change the member to use Rcvr
3. change the type R used for the own-env-t to be "...get_env(declval())..."

Fixes #7971
Fixes cplusplus/papers#2200

Eisenwave

Thanks for drafting this up.

Lots of work required before this is ready to go.

Also note that fixing up CI builds is not a fixup commit; it should just go into the main commit. The point of fixups is just to distinguish between turning the paper into TeX, and fixing typos and other minor issues afterwards.

Massaging whitespace or paragraph justification is not a separate commit.

source/exceptions.tex

source/exec.tex

Eisenwave · 2025-07-11T18:23:02Z

source/exec.tex

+\tcode{affine_on} adapts a sender into one that completes on
+the specified scheduler. If the algorithm determines that the adapted
+sender already completes on the correct scheduler it can avoid any
+scheduling operation.


This repository uses semantic line breaks (https://sembr.org/). I don't want to bother you too much, but please put new sentences on a separate line at least. That is, newline after ..

Note that the TeX still renders the same whether you put a space or a newline into the source.

I have changed the text to have each sentence start on a new line (in this commit)

source/exec.tex

jensmaurer · 2025-07-11T20:45:08Z

@Eisenwave and @dietmarkuehl , let me recap the general rules for paper pull requests, and their rationale.

We generally do not want force-pushes during paper application, because that might impede in-flight review. (We're fine with / encourage force-pushes for non-paper pull requests.)
Any commit prefixed by "fixup" in the title will be squashed when @tkoeppe merges the pull request. These are the kind of commits that should appear when you've forgotten to apply a change in the incoming paper. Obviously, we don't want to keep this for posterity. Having a separate commit also helps with "look, I've really fixed that". Since this will be squashed, the commit description doesn't matter a lot (of course, it should be readable).
For example, "fixup: add indexing" is a perfectly fine commit title here (provided the contents is related to the title). Or "fixup: avoid overfull hboxes".
Punctuation fixes (Oxford comma, after bullets, after subordinate clauses etc.) should be done silently in the original commit, or as a "fixup" later (if you notice punctuation issues after creating the pull request).
More involved, but still "obviously editorial" fixes should be mentioned in the original commit description, e.g. "dissolved lone subclause X" or "marked exposition-only identifiers"
Anything beyond that warrants a separate, proper editorial commit in the usual format "[sub.clause.label] What is changed".

Adding cross-references to definitions of terms is probably in the "obviously editorial" area, but requires a check whether the xref is pointing to the right place (and thus is putting additional burden on the reviewers). Having a separate, proper editorial commit "[sub.clause.label] Add cross-references to term definitions" would be a bit more transparent, and clearly differentiates paper content from add-on editorial fixes. Occasionally, cross-references are normative (we mean exactly those situations), and changing / amending them would not be editorial.

Hope that helps.

dietmarkuehl · 2025-07-13T16:31:12Z

I believe I have addressed all comments which were raised so far. Please let me know when I need to do more changes.

Thank you very much for the review!

tkoeppe · 2025-07-17T00:05:23Z

I've squashed the fixups and rebased the branch so it's now in its final position.

tkoeppe · 2025-07-17T10:49:23Z

source/exec.tex

@@ -7877,3 +7909,871 @@
 The storage referenced by \tcode{s} may be used by \tcode{*this}
 as temporary storage for the duration of the operation launched by this call.
 \end{itemdescr}
+
+\rSec2[exec.affine.on]{\tcode{execution::affine_on}}


@dietmarkuehl I'm assuming this material is meant to go under "Coroutine utilities" (which happened to be at the end of [exec] prior to this meeting), rather than under "Namespace system_context_replaceability".

yes, that is correct.

The changed location is the result of a previous rebase, I guess. Is there something I should do?

No, I've got it. It was just that the edit instructions were not literally true ("at the end of [exec]" should instead of named the subclause at whose end you wanted it), so I mainly just want to confirm that I understood the intention.

Editorial notes: - the new subclauses are appended at the end of [exec.coro.util], not at the end of [exec] as the paper says - inconsistent default template arguments for the ctor in the class declaration (allocator<byte> and the later description (allocator<void>); the wording consistently uses allocator<void> - added "of the" to a sentence about the type of a completion datum: "... defines the type *of the* value completion datum" - the use of the template parameter of the nested type state is Rcvr which has two problems: 1. the ctor also uses the name Rcvr for its template parameter 2. the class stores an object of type R which is the receiver named rcvr the most logic fix is to use Rcvr consistently for the state and change the name for the ctor's parameter: 1. change the ctor template parameter type to use R 2. change the member to use Rcvr 3. change the type R used for the own-env-t to be "...get_env(declval<Rcvr>())..."

The definitions of with_error and change_coroutine_scheduler are now in the main <execution> synopsis. They have no further description.

Done

tkoeppe · 2025-07-17T12:09:13Z

Thanks a lot for this, Dietmar! Very nice drafting!

dietmarkuehl mentioned this pull request Jun 29, 2025

[2025-06 LWG Motion 34] P3552R3 Add a Coroutine Task Type #7971

Closed

jensmaurer changed the title ~~FIXES: 7971 [2025-06 LWG Motion 34] P3552R3 Add a Coroutine Task~~ [2025-06 LWG Motion 34] P3552R3 Add a Coroutine Task Jun 30, 2025

Eisenwave previously requested changes Jul 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

tkoeppe force-pushed the motions-2025-06-21-lwg-34 branch from 5df4a38 to 3414b7e Compare July 17, 2025 00:03

tkoeppe reviewed Jul 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

tkoeppe force-pushed the motions-2025-06-21-lwg-34 branch from 3414b7e to 79d1725 Compare July 17, 2025 11:03

dietmarkuehl added 2 commits July 17, 2025 13:03

[execution.syn, task.promise] Move class definitions to synopsis

c557f21

The definitions of with_error and change_coroutine_scheduler are now in the main <execution> synopsis. They have no further description.

tkoeppe force-pushed the motions-2025-06-21-lwg-34 branch from 79d1725 to c557f21 Compare July 17, 2025 12:03

tkoeppe merged commit 91a7dfa into cplusplus:main Jul 17, 2025
2 checks passed

[2025-06 LWG Motion 34] P3552R3 Add a Coroutine Task #8032

[2025-06 LWG Motion 34] P3552R3 Add a Coroutine Task #8032

Uh oh!

Conversation

dietmarkuehl commented Jun 29, 2025 • edited by jensmaurer Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Eisenwave left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Eisenwave Jul 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dietmarkuehl Jul 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jensmaurer commented Jul 11, 2025

Uh oh!

dietmarkuehl commented Jul 13, 2025

Uh oh!

tkoeppe commented Jul 17, 2025

Uh oh!

tkoeppe Jul 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dietmarkuehl Jul 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dietmarkuehl Jul 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tkoeppe Jul 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tkoeppe commented Jul 17, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dietmarkuehl commented Jun 29, 2025 •

edited by jensmaurer

Loading

Eisenwave left a comment •

edited

Loading