Set issue priorities from reflector polls

Author: jwakely

xml/issue4062.xml

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 <section><sref ref="[range.prim.empty]"/></section>
 <submitter>Hewill Kang</submitter>
 <date>30 Mar 2024</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>3</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -35,6 +35,19 @@ Alternatively, maybe we could move bullets targeting <tt>forward_range</tt>s to
 <tt>ranges::empty</tt> always has correct semantics with <tt>bool(ranges::begin(t) == ranges::end(t))</tt> when
 applied to <tt>forward_range</tt>s.
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-10-20; Reflector poll.</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 3 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+<p>
+"This is the part of <paper num="P3156"/> that is actually a defect.
+We need to require ranges::empty to actually mean what we think it means.
+Would be reasonable to add a sematic requirement to the `range` concept
+that if `ranges::empty(r)` is well-formed then it does what it should do
+(equal to `bool(begin == end)`, has amortized constant complexity,
+does not modify `r`, is not required to be valid after `begin` for non-forward)."
+</p>
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4066.xml

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 <section><sref ref="[range.utility.conv.to]"/></section>
 <submitter>Hewill Kang</submitter>
 <date>13 Apr 2024</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>4</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -25,6 +25,26 @@ was approved in Hagenberg.
 It also conflicts with LWG <iref ref="3722"/>.
 </p>
 
+
+<note>2025-10-20; Reflector poll.</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 4 after reflector poll. Most votes were "P4 or NAD".
+</p>
+<p>
+"I do not see a motivating example of `input_range` that would produce
+`sized_sentinel_for` for `begin`/`end` but would not be sized itself.
+However, the fix seems correct.
+Would prefer if would check if produced `subrange` is sized,
+instead of using a requires expression."
+</p>
+<p>
+"Might as well do it, even though a `sized_sentinel_for`-but-not-sized
+input range feels like an extreme corner case."
+</p>
+<p>
+"This is just applying the contrived case mentioned in LWG <iref ref="3737"/>
+to `ranges::to`."
+</p>
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4229.xml

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 <?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8' standalone='no'?>
 <!DOCTYPE issue SYSTEM "lwg-issue.dtd">
 
-<issue num="4229" status="New">
+<issue num="4229" status="Tentatively NAD">
 <title>`std::ranges::to` with union return type</title>
 <section>
 <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
 It's unclear whether union types were intended to be accepted. Perhaps we should follow implementations' 
 choices and reject them.
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-10-20; Reflector poll; Status changed: New &rarr; Tentatively NAD.</note>
+<p>
+"Those implementations have bugs and should be fixed."
+</p>
+<p>
+There's no intrinsic reason why unions (with suitable constructors)
+should be rejected here."
+</p>
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4270.xml

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 <section><sref ref="[projected]"/></section>
 <submitter>Jiang An</submitter>
 <date>30 May 2025</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>3</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -19,6 +19,14 @@ It seems better to diagnose such misuse, as we are already diagnosing misuse of
 but libc++ and libstdc++ have already switched not to do this (see 
 <a href="https://github.com/microsoft/STL/issues/5555">microsoft/STL#5555</a>).
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-10-20; Reflector poll.</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 3 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+<p>
+"NAD, the standard is clear that it can't be used."
+</p>
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4381.xml

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
 </section>
 <submitter>Jens Maurer</submitter>
 <date>23 Sep 2025</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>2</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -24,6 +24,14 @@ clarify the core wording accordingly.
 Suggested resolution: Remove <sref ref="[range.utility.conv.to]"/> p3, p4, p5 
 and the respective entry in the synopsis as unimplementable.
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-10-20; Reflector poll.</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 2 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+<p>
+The core language needs to be fixed so this works.
+</p>
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>