Add note to 4036 and cross-reference to 2241

Author: jwakely

xml/issue4036.xml

@@ -14,22 +14,22 @@ Currently <sref ref="[stdalign.h.syn]"/> states
 </p>
 <blockquote style="border-left: 3px solid #ccc;padding-left: 15px;">
 <p>
-The contents of the C++ header <tt>&lt;stdalign.h&gt;</tt> are the same as the C standard library header 
-<tt>&lt;stdalign.h&gt;</tt>, with the following changes: The header <tt>&lt;stdalign.h&gt;</tt> does not 
+The contents of the C++ header <tt>&lt;stdalign.h&gt;</tt> are the same as the C standard library header
+<tt>&lt;stdalign.h&gt;</tt>, with the following changes: The header <tt>&lt;stdalign.h&gt;</tt> does not
 define a macro named <tt>alignas</tt>.
 <p/>
 <span style="font-variant: small-caps">See also</span>: ISO/IEC 9899:2018, 7.15
 </p>
 </blockquote>
 <p>
-which implicitly specifies that <tt>__alignof_is_defined</tt> is also provided in C++, because C17 
+which implicitly specifies that <tt>__alignof_is_defined</tt> is also provided in C++, because C17
 specified that the macro is provided in <tt>&lt;stdaligh.h&gt;</tt>.
 <p/>
-However, there's no explicit mentioning of <tt>__alignof_is_defined</tt> in the C++ standard wording. 
-And <sref ref="[depr.c.macros]"/>/1 (added by LWG <iref ref="3827"/>) seemingly contradicts with 
+However, there's no explicit mentioning of <tt>__alignof_is_defined</tt> in the C++ standard wording.
+And <sref ref="[depr.c.macros]"/>/1 (added by LWG <iref ref="3827"/>) seemingly contradicts with
 <sref ref="[stdalign.h.syn]"/> and only makes <tt>__alignas_is_defined</tt> deprecated.
 <p/>
-It seems that we should explicitly mention <tt>__alignof_is_defined</tt> in <sref ref="[depr.c.macros]"/> 
+It seems that we should explicitly mention <tt>__alignof_is_defined</tt> in <sref ref="[depr.c.macros]"/>
 at this moment.
 </p>
 
@@ -39,6 +39,9 @@ Set status to Tentatively Ready after seven votes in favour during reflector pol
 </p>
 
 <note>Tokyo 2024-03-23; Status changed: Voting &rarr; WP.</note>
+
+<note>2024-10-22; Note: this should have been handled by LWG <iref ref="2241"/> but that issue was closed as Resolved without properly resolving it.</note>
+
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>