Set some priorities after reflector polls

Author: jwakely

xml/issue4267.xml

@@ -29,9 +29,7 @@ Set priority to 3 after reflector poll.
 construction of references as equivalent to normal construction."
 </p>
 
-</discussion>
-
-<resolution>
+<superseded>
 <p>
 This wording is relative to <paper num="N5008"/>.
 </p>
@@ -66,6 +64,48 @@ is `true` for at least one <tt>T<sub><i>i</i></sub></tt>.</ins>
 
 </ol>
 
+</superseded>
+
+<note>2025-10-15; Jonathan provides new wording</note>
+
+</discussion>
+
+<resolution>
+<p>
+This wording is relative to <paper num="N5014"/>.
+</p>
+<ol>
+
+<li><p>Modify <sref ref="[tuple.cnstr]"/> as indicated:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<pre>
+template&lt;class Alloc&gt;
+  constexpr explicit(<i>see below</i>)
+    tuple(allocator_arg_t, const Alloc&amp; a);
+[&hellip;]
+template&lt;class Alloc, tuple-like UTuple&gt;
+  constexpr explicit(<i>see below</i>)
+    tuple(allocator_arg_t, const Alloc&amp; a, UTuple&amp;&amp;);
+</pre>
+<blockquote>
+<p>
+-32- <i>Preconditions</i>: `Alloc` meets the <i>Cpp17Allocator</i> requirements (<sref ref="[allocator.requirements.general]"/>).
+<p/>
+-33- <i>Effects</i>:
+Equivalent to the preceding constructors except that each element
+<ins>of non-reference type</ins>
+is constructed with uses-allocator construction
+(<sref ref="[allocator.uses.construction]"/>).
+</p>
+</blockquote>
+</blockquote>
+
+</li>
+
+</ol>
+
+
 </resolution>
 
 </issue>

xml/issue4275.xml

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
 </section>
 <submitter>Aiden Grossman</submitter>
 <date>06 Jun 2025</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>3</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -47,6 +47,12 @@ namespace std {
 
 <note>2025-06-10; Jonathan provides improved wording</note>
 
+
+<note>2025-10-15; Reflector poll</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 3 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4281.xml

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
 </section>
 <submitter>Hiroaki Ando</submitter>
 <date>27 Jun 2025</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>3</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -54,6 +54,12 @@ else
 
 <note>2025-10-15; would be resolved by LWG <iref ref="4406"/></note>
 
+
+<note>2025-10-16; Reflector poll</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 3 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4311.xml

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
 </section>
 <submitter>Jiang An</submitter>
 <date>06 Aug 2025</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>3</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -25,6 +25,22 @@ As a result, it seems non-conforming to just use `uninitialized_construct_using_
 perhaps we can just respecify `polymorphic_allocator::construct` to use 
 `uninitialized_construct_using_allocator`.
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-10-15; Reflector poll</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 3 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+<p>
+"What is the extent of the breakage?
+`pmr::polymorphic_allocator::new_object` uses `construct`,
+so does this break users of that function?"
+</p>
+<p>
+We could modify `new_object` to allocate and construct
+<code>remove_cv_t&lt;T&gt;</code> instead of `T`,
+so that it could still use `construct`.
+</p>
+
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4406.xml

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
 </section>
 <submitter>Hewill Kang</submitter>
 <date>06 Sep 2025</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>3</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -40,6 +40,16 @@ It is reasonable to create objects that stick to <i>Mandates</i>. The same goes
 <p/>
 This issue has considerable overlap with LWG <iref ref="4281"/>.
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-10-16; Reflector poll</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 3 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+<p>
+This would need to use `val` instead of `**this` if LWG <iref ref="4015"/>
+is accepted.
+</p>
+
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>