Set priorities based on reflector polls (and age of some old issues in LEWG status)

Author: jwakely

xml/issue2883.xml

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
 <section><sref ref="[string.view]"/></section>
 <submitter>Switzerland</submitter>
 <date>3 Feb 2017</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>4</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <b>Addresses CH 9</b>
@@ -32,6 +32,9 @@ it is usable to have <tt>string_view</tt> overloads and there might be many plac
 
 <note>2017-07 Toronto Thurs Issue Prioritization</note>
 <p>Status LEWG - they're already looking at this.</p>
+
+<note>2025-10-21; Priority set to 4 based on age of issue and lack of activity.</note>
+
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue2973.xml

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 <section><sref ref="[alg.merge]"/></section>
 <submitter>Billy Robert O'Neal III</submitter>
 <date>8 Jun 2017</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>4</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -21,6 +21,9 @@ compares like this, given that users must be prepared for the fallback "not enou
 
 <note>2017-07 Toronto Monday issue prioritization</note>
 <p>Status to LEWG</p>
+
+<note>2025-10-21; Priority set to 4 based on age of issue and lack of activity.</note>
+
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4259.xml

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 <section><sref ref="[string.find]"/></section>
 <submitter>Jiang An</submitter>
 <date>5 May 2025</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>3</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -64,6 +64,11 @@ else
 During reflector discussion of this issue there was a preference to adjust the
 proposed wording to use `s.npos` instead of `size_t(-1)`. 
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-10-21; Reflector poll.</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 3 after reflector poll.
+</p>
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4262.xml

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 <section><sref ref="[alg.copy]"/><sref ref="[alg.remove]"/><sref ref="[alg.unique]"/></section>
 <submitter>Alex Guteniev</submitter>
 <date>12 May 2025</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>3</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -38,6 +38,28 @@ I think there should be a weaker precondition, like <sref ref="[alg.copy]"/>/2:
 <i>Preconditions</i>: `result` is not in the range `[first, last)`.
 </p>
 </blockquote>
+
+<note>2025-10-21; Reflector poll.</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 3 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+<p>
+"The proposed resolution is incorrect, because the output iterator could ‘enter’
+the range [first, last) via being incremented. If the output iterator is a
+reverse iterator, it starts writing to the end of [first,last) before we
+need to read from there."
+</p>
+<p>
+"NAD - nothing is broken with the existing constraint. Relaxing it is a design change."
+</p>
+<p>
+"NAD.  The right behavior, if the algorithm runs out of output space,
+is to return the last processed input iterator and the "next spot"
+output iterator.  This is what <paper num="P3179"/>  (parallel ranges algorithms) does
+with its range-as-output algorithms.  I would not want the proposed
+resolution without this change.  Otherwise, we would be introducing
+new UB unnecessarily."
+</p>
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4285.xml

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
 </section>
 <submitter>S. B. Tam</submitter>
 <date>27 Jun 2025</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>3</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -35,6 +35,25 @@ to accept additional formats, ambiguity could arise if the locale's format disag
 On POSIX systems, it is possible to query the locale's date format using `nl_langinfo(D_FMT)`. 
 Maybe an implementation should be allowed to use that format <b>instead</b> of the one indicated by `date_order()`.
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-10-21; Reflector poll.</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 3 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+<p>
+"The current wording of `do_date_order()` suggests it should return one of the
+`dmy`, `mdy`, `ymd`, `ymd`, or `ydm` enumerators as long as the date format
+specified by `%x` has no components except day, month, and year.
+But that fails to consider alternative separators between the components. 
+The `kok_IN` locale uses `"%d-%m-%y" which does not contain
+"other variable components" but still doesn't match any of the fixed formats
+in Table 102.
+We need normative wording allowing `no_order`, instead of just a footnoote,
+and we need to say `do_get_date` only has to use the formats in the table
+when `do_date_order() != no_order`. It should not default to the `mdy` format
+when `do_date_order()` returns `no_order`, because if the `mdy` format is
+correct then it should have returned `mdy`!"
+</p>
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4378.xml

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
 </section>
 <submitter>Peter Bindels</submitter>
 <date>16 Sep 2025</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>4</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -48,6 +48,29 @@ This moves it inline with the `data()` specification. Given the hardened precond
 not define what the feature does when called with broken preconditions. I have been looking at 
 the latter but that will be an EWG paper instead.
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-10-21; Reflector poll.</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 4 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+<p>
+"NAD. `begin() + size()` is not dereferenceable and should remain that way."
+</p>
+<p>
+"Saying "if <code>pos &lt;= size()</code> is redundant given the precondition above."
+</p>
+<p>
+"The resolution removes any guarantee that the value at `str[str.size()]`
+is `charT()`. Furthermore, the premise of the issue is incorrect,
+returning the address of a different null terminator not belonging to the
+string would make traversing it with other string operations UB, so it
+has to return a reference to a terminator that's within the same array."
+</p>
+<p>
+"`*(begin() = size())` is UB, but could use `*(data() + size())` instead.
+Personally I'd like `*end()` to be valid, but that's certainly LEWG business
+requiring a paper."
+</p>
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>