PEP 682: Format Specifier for Signed Zero

PEPs
21

The new proposal was promised for C++23. I don’t think proposals for that version have started coming in yet.

The authors of P2021 and P1496 have a consensus, the NB comment is withdrawn, a paper will be forwarded for C++23.

I haven’t been successful contacting Alan Talbot, the primary author, by email.

In the end, this is a useful change, and we’ve outlined why in the PEP. It’s reassuring to know that others came to a similar conclusion independently. I can’t guess how the politics of C++ will go. But Python’s change may influence other languages and libraries.

2 Likes
22

On the contrary, C++23 is effectively feature-complete and accepts no more changes that aren’t already in-flight. Edit: better paper to demonstrate the congestion for C++23, especially on the library side.

As I wrote above, this was not a judgement on the merit of the PEP for Python. :slight_smile:

23

PS. Victor Zverovich responsed to my question:

@h-vetinari: Out of curiosity, did said consensus paper ever materialize? Still planned? Completely dead?
CC @vitaut

@vitaut: I haven’t heard from anyone interested in this thus no new papers.

24

Thank you for the C++23 citations and inquiry. So we can assume that a change won’t be in C++ in the foreseeable future.

25

Thank you, steering council! I’m happy to accept the role, and I’ll follow up properly this weekend.

3 Likes
26

And the PEP is accepted! Accepting PEP 682 (Format Specifier for Signed Zero)

7 Likes