Set priorities for LWG 3959,4350,4352,4374,4384 (flat containers)

xml/issue3959.xml

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 <section><sref ref="[flat.map]"/><sref ref="[flat.multimap]"/></section>
 <submitter>Jiang An</submitter>
 <date>23 Jul 2023</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>3</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -25,6 +25,16 @@ required to copy the comparator twice due to the exposition-only constructor of
 <p/>
 Should we make the constructor take a <tt>const</tt> reference?
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-10-21; Reflector poll.</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 3 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+<p>
+We should provide blanket wording to specify that comparators,
+hashers, allocators, etc. can be copied as often or as little as
+needed. Consider generalizing <iref ref="3049"/>.
+</p>
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4350.xml

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
 </section>
 <submitter>Jonathan Wakely</submitter>
 <date>05 Sep 2025</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>2</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -28,6 +28,15 @@ That would mean that user containers need to ensure that any member functions
 with those names must behave as expected, but we already require that for
 `std::queue`.
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-10-21; Reflector poll.</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 2 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+<p>
+Use <tt>append_range</tt> to be consitient with other adapters.
+Send to LEWG for confirmation.
+</p>
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4352.xml

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 <section><sref ref="[flat.multimap.overview]"/></section>
 <submitter>Jonathan Wakely</submitter>
 <date>05 Sep 2025</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>3</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -32,6 +32,15 @@ It's a bit of a stretch to say they're equivalent when they don't even have
 the same parameters, so we need some weasel words here.
 </p>
 
+
+<note>2025-10-21; Reflector poll.</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 3 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+<p>
+Define them in terms of <tt>insert_range(std::forward&lt;R&gt;(rg))</tt>
+with updated <i>Complexity</i>.
+</p>
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4374.xml

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
 </section>
 <submitter>Tim Song</submitter>
 <date>09 Sep 2025</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>3</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -25,6 +25,11 @@ it will fall back to a less efficient <tt>&#x1d4aa;(N log N)</tt> algorithm, but
 in the <i>Complexity</i>: element. Alternatively, if the allocation failure is reported by an exception, 
 that should be called out in the spec.
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-10-21; Reflector poll.</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 3 after reflector poll.
+</p>
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4384.xml

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 <?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8' standalone='no'?>
 <!DOCTYPE issue SYSTEM "lwg-issue.dtd">
 
-<issue num="4384" status="New">
+<issue num="4384" status="Tentatively Ready">
 <title>`flat_set::erase(iterator)` is underconstrained
 </title>
 <section>
@@ -16,6 +16,11 @@
 <p>
 This is a follow-up of LWG <iref ref="3704"/> since we now have `flat_set` and `flat_multiset`.
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-10-21; Reflector poll.</note>
+<p>
+Set status to Tentatively Ready after seven votes in favour during reflector poll.
+</p>
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>