Set some priorities based on reflector polls

Author: jwakely

xml/issue4173.xml

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 <section><sref ref="[containers]"/></section>
 <submitter>Jonathan Wakely</submitter>
 <date>21 Nov 2024</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>4</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -19,6 +19,35 @@ could be confused with node handles for associative containers, and
 (based on Wikipedia) has connotations of additional indirection, and something
 which would <i>not</i> be invalidated when the underlying storage changes.
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-02-07; Reflector poll</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 4 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+<p>
+"Maybe 'pointer to elements' or a longer phrase that includes the verb
+'invalidates', which has special meaning in this section."
+</p>
+<p>
+"Note that there are cases where we invalidate iterators but not pointers/references."
+</p>
+<p>
+"Maybe define 'addresses' to mean 'pointers and references' since they're
+always invalidated at the same time, but iterators are sometimes separate."
+</p>
+<p>
+"Referential element accessors"
+</p>
+<p>
+"Define 'pointer-invalidating' (for both pointers and references) and
+'iterator-invalidating', and say that the former always implies the latter.
+Maybe also introduce antonyms 'pointer-preserving' and 'iterator-preserving'."
+</p>
+<p>
+"Should be defined in terms of affected elements, e.g.
+'pointer-invalidating for any erased elements'."
+</p>
+
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4176.xml

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 <section><sref ref="[containers]"/></section>
 <submitter>Jonathan Wakely</submitter>
 <date>22 Nov 2024</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>4</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -24,6 +24,12 @@ in full, and sometimes rely on distant wording that applies to all containers.
 It would be easier if `vector::erase` referred back to
 <sref ref="[sequence.reqmts]"/>.
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-02-07; Reflector poll</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 4 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4180.xml

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 <section><sref ref="[flat.multiset.modifiers]"/><sref ref="[flat.map.modifiers]"/></section>
 <submitter>Arthur O'Dwyer</submitter>
 <date>09 Dec 2024</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>3</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -34,6 +34,13 @@ While we're touching this paragraph, also resolve the vague word "initializes" t
 Editorially, <tt>pair&lt;&hellip;&gt;</tt> is a verbose way to spell the `value_type` of a `flat_map`; we should 
 be consistent and just say `value_type`.
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-02-07; Reflector poll</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 3 after reflector poll.
+See reflector discussion for comments about proposed resolution.
+</p>
+
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4181.xml

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 <section><sref ref="[iterator.range]"/><sref ref="[range.prim.ssize]"/></section>
 <submitter>Casey Carter</submitter>
 <date>13 Dec 2024</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>3</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -18,6 +18,19 @@ Perhaps the `ssize` overloads should return
 <tt>static_cast&lt;common_type_t&lt;ptrdiff_t, iter_difference_t&lt;decltype(<i>meow</i>.begin())&gt;&gt;&gt;(<i>meow</i>.size())</tt> 
 instead when the argument <tt><i>meow</i></tt> models `range`?
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-02-07; Reflector poll</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 3 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+<p>
+"The behaviour for Ranges regressed due to LWG <iref ref="3403"/>.
+It might have been a mistake to broaden the domain of `ranges::ssize` to match
+that of `ranges::size`.  The latter includes some non-Range arguments to ease
+the transition from `std::size`, but thjere was no existing body of pre-C++20
+code calling `std::ssize` that needed a transition path."
+</p>
+
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4190.xml

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 <section><sref ref="[exec.snd.expos]"/></section>
 <submitter>Eric Niebler</submitter>
 <date>2 Jan 2025</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>2</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -31,6 +31,16 @@ The <tt>sender_in&lt;Sndr, Env&gt;</tt> concept requires that <tt>get_completion
 well-formed and that its type is a specialization of <tt>completion_signatures</tt>. But the return type of 
 `get_completion_signatures(sndr, env)` is exactly the thing this para is trying to define!
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-02-07; Reflector poll</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 2 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+<p>
+First sentence of p39 should be either "Let the type `Sndr` be ..." or
+"Let `Sndr` be ...", but not "Let type `Sndr` be ...".
+</p>
+
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4196.xml

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 <section><sref ref="[alg.merge]"/></section>
 <submitter>Stephen Howe</submitter>
 <date>22 Jan 2025</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>4</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -61,6 +61,16 @@ sequence is over, so the 2nd sequence is copied. Only 1 comparison is done, not
 <p>
 The <a href="https://sgistl.github.io/inplace_merge.html">SGI STL archive</a> correctly says "at most" as well.
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-02-07; Reflector poll</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 4 after reflector poll.
+There were nine votes for P0 (Tentatively Ready), but also several for
+NAD Editorial, because <sref ref="[structure.specifications]"/>/7 explicitly
+says that all complexity requirements are upper bounds and it's conforming to
+do less work. The consensus was that this is still a clarifying improvement.
+</p>
+
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4202.xml

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 <section><sref ref="[exec.snd.concepts]"/></section>
 <submitter>Eric Niebler</submitter>
 <date>03 Feb 2025</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>1</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -27,6 +27,12 @@ the `enable_sender` variable template was turned into
 an exposition-only <i><code>enable-sender</code></i> concept.
 We should roll back that change.
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-02-07; Reflector poll</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 1 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>