Skip to content

Commit 304283e

Browse files
committed
Set issue priorities from reflector polls
1 parent dc40017 commit 304283e

File tree

5 files changed

+63
-5
lines changed

5 files changed

+63
-5
lines changed

xml/issue4062.xml

Lines changed: 14 additions & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
66
<section><sref ref="[range.prim.empty]"/></section>
77
<submitter>Hewill Kang</submitter>
88
<date>30 Mar 2024</date>
9-
<priority>99</priority>
9+
<priority>3</priority>
1010

1111
<discussion>
1212
<p>
@@ -35,6 +35,19 @@ Alternatively, maybe we could move bullets targeting <tt>forward_range</tt>s to
3535
<tt>ranges::empty</tt> always has correct semantics with <tt>bool(ranges::begin(t) == ranges::end(t))</tt> when
3636
applied to <tt>forward_range</tt>s.
3737
</p>
38+
39+
<note>2025-10-20; Reflector poll.</note>
40+
<p>
41+
Set priority to 3 after reflector poll.
42+
</p>
43+
<p>
44+
"This is the part of <paper num="P3156"/> that is actually a defect.
45+
We need to require ranges::empty to actually mean what we think it means.
46+
Would be reasonable to add a sematic requirement to the `range` concept
47+
that if `ranges::empty(r)` is well-formed then it does what it should do
48+
(equal to `bool(begin == end)`, has amortized constant complexity,
49+
does not modify `r`, is not required to be valid after `begin` for non-forward)."
50+
</p>
3851
</discussion>
3952

4053
<resolution>

xml/issue4066.xml

Lines changed: 21 additions & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
66
<section><sref ref="[range.utility.conv.to]"/></section>
77
<submitter>Hewill Kang</submitter>
88
<date>13 Apr 2024</date>
9-
<priority>99</priority>
9+
<priority>4</priority>
1010

1111
<discussion>
1212
<p>
@@ -25,6 +25,26 @@ was approved in Hagenberg.
2525
It also conflicts with LWG <iref ref="3722"/>.
2626
</p>
2727

28+
29+
<note>2025-10-20; Reflector poll.</note>
30+
<p>
31+
Set priority to 4 after reflector poll. Most votes were "P4 or NAD".
32+
</p>
33+
<p>
34+
"I do not see a motivating example of `input_range` that would produce
35+
`sized_sentinel_for` for `begin`/`end` but would not be sized itself.
36+
However, the fix seems correct.
37+
Would prefer if would check if produced `subrange` is sized,
38+
instead of using a requires expression."
39+
</p>
40+
<p>
41+
"Might as well do it, even though a `sized_sentinel_for`-but-not-sized
42+
input range feels like an extreme corner case."
43+
</p>
44+
<p>
45+
"This is just applying the contrived case mentioned in LWG <iref ref="3737"/>
46+
to `ranges::to`."
47+
</p>
2848
</discussion>
2949

3050
<resolution>

xml/issue4229.xml

Lines changed: 10 additions & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
11
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8' standalone='no'?>
22
<!DOCTYPE issue SYSTEM "lwg-issue.dtd">
33

4-
<issue num="4229" status="New">
4+
<issue num="4229" status="Tentatively NAD">
55
<title>`std::ranges::to` with union return type</title>
66
<section>
77
<sref ref="[range.utility.conv.to]"/><sref ref="[range.utility.conv.adaptors]"/>
@@ -76,6 +76,15 @@ implemented the "class" part in the <i>Mandates</i> at all
7676
It's unclear whether union types were intended to be accepted. Perhaps we should follow implementations'
7777
choices and reject them.
7878
</p>
79+
80+
<note>2025-10-20; Reflector poll; Status changed: New &rarr; Tentatively NAD.</note>
81+
<p>
82+
"Those implementations have bugs and should be fixed."
83+
</p>
84+
<p>
85+
There's no intrinsic reason why unions (with suitable constructors)
86+
should be rejected here."
87+
</p>
7988
</discussion>
8089

8190
<resolution>

xml/issue4270.xml

Lines changed: 9 additions & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
66
<section><sref ref="[projected]"/></section>
77
<submitter>Jiang An</submitter>
88
<date>30 May 2025</date>
9-
<priority>99</priority>
9+
<priority>3</priority>
1010

1111
<discussion>
1212
<p>
@@ -19,6 +19,14 @@ It seems better to diagnose such misuse, as we are already diagnosing misuse of
1919
but libc++ and libstdc++ have already switched not to do this (see
2020
<a href="https://github.com/microsoft/STL/issues/5555">microsoft/STL#5555</a>).
2121
</p>
22+
23+
<note>2025-10-20; Reflector poll.</note>
24+
<p>
25+
Set priority to 3 after reflector poll.
26+
</p>
27+
<p>
28+
"NAD, the standard is clear that it can't be used."
29+
</p>
2230
</discussion>
2331

2432
<resolution>

xml/issue4381.xml

Lines changed: 9 additions & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
99
</section>
1010
<submitter>Jens Maurer</submitter>
1111
<date>23 Sep 2025</date>
12-
<priority>99</priority>
12+
<priority>2</priority>
1313

1414
<discussion>
1515
<p>
@@ -24,6 +24,14 @@ clarify the core wording accordingly.
2424
Suggested resolution: Remove <sref ref="[range.utility.conv.to]"/> p3, p4, p5
2525
and the respective entry in the synopsis as unimplementable.
2626
</p>
27+
28+
<note>2025-10-20; Reflector poll.</note>
29+
<p>
30+
Set priority to 2 after reflector poll.
31+
</p>
32+
<p>
33+
The core language needs to be fixed so this works.
34+
</p>
2735
</discussion>
2836

2937
<resolution>

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)