Set some priorities based on reflector polls

Author: jwakely

xml/issue4152.xml

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 <section><sref ref="[char.traits.require]"/></section>
 <submitter>Jiang An</submitter>
 <date>08 Sep 2024</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>4</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -18,6 +18,24 @@ it might be better to explicitly say that instantiation of the primary template
 Also, it seems outdated to say "explicit specializations" as partial specializations are possible 
 since C++20.
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-02-07; Reflector poll</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 4 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+<p>
+<sref ref="[char.traits.general]"/>/1 says that the subclause
+"defines a class template <code>char_traits&lt;charT&gt;</code>",
+but we never provided a definition.
+</p>
+<p>
+"Libc++ started to warn that the primary template is deprecated and will
+be removed. The proposed resolution doesn't improve matters though."
+</p>
+<p>
+"The definition should be cross-platform. Unspecified doesn't help."
+</p>
+
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4156.xml

@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
 <?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8' standalone='no'?>
 <!DOCTYPE issue SYSTEM "lwg-issue.dtd">
 
-<issue num="4156" status="New">
+<issue num="4156" status="SG16">
 <title><code>error_category</code> messages have unspecified encoding</title>
 <section><sref ref="[syserr.errcat.virtuals]"/></section>
 <submitter>Victor Zverovich</submitter>
 <date>18 Sep 2024</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>3</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -63,6 +63,19 @@ The proposed resolution is similar to the one of LWG <iref ref="4087"/>.
 <sref ref="[syserr.errcat.overview]"/>.
 </p>
 
+
+<note>2025-02-07; Reflector poll</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 3 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+<p>
+"Do we need to say something about `name()` too? Does this requirement apply
+to user overrides? If it does, what's the consequence of a violation? UB?
+This 'encoding for strings returned by the library' questions feels like it
+should be comprehensively addressed in a paper rather than as a patchwork of
+individual issues."
+</p>
+
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4161.xml

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 <section><sref ref="[complex.numbers]"/></section>
 <submitter>Jiang An</submitter>
 <date>29 Sep 2024</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>3</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -23,6 +23,18 @@ floating-point type. However, it's unclear to me how to handle cases where the i
 <tt>complex&lt;X&gt;</tt> (where <tt>X</tt> is not a program-defined type) as extension, and whether <i>Mandates</i> 
 should be used.
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-02-07; Reflector poll</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 3 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+<p>
+"Program-defined specializations of `std::complex`
+(i.e. explicit specializations and program-defined partial specializations)
+seem unsupportably broken. We should say so explicitly until somebody writes
+a paper to fix them."
+</p>
+
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>