Set priorties for 4420,4396,4379,4380,4323,4371

xml/issue4323.xml

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
 </section>
 <submitter>Matt Bentley</submitter>
 <date>24 Aug 2025</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>3</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -39,6 +39,12 @@ This is a separate but related issue to LWG <iref ref="4320"/>, but it would
 affect the outcome wording of that issue for `unique`.
 </p>
 </blockquote>
+
+<note>2025-10-22; Reflector poll.</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 3 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4371.xml

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 <?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8' standalone='no'?>
 <!DOCTYPE issue SYSTEM "lwg-issue.dtd">
 
-<issue num="4371" status="New">
+<issue num="4371" status="Tentatively NAD">
 <title>Container adaptor's `empty`/`size` should be `noexcept`</title>
 <section>
 <sref ref="[queue.defn]"/>
@@ -25,6 +25,13 @@ explicitly say those two members of the container must not throw, the fact that
 containers and common third-party containers mark them as unconditionally `noexcept` implies 
 that it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they never will.
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-10-22 Reflector poll. Status changed: New &rarr; Tentatively NAD.</note>
+<p>
+General disagrement with the proposed change.
+Implicitly changing container requirements.
+We should fix `flat_` adaptors instead.
+</p>
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4379.xml

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
 </section>
 <submitter>Matt Bentley</submitter>
 <date>17 Sep 2025</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>3</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -32,6 +32,15 @@ being <tt>&gt; max_size</tt>.
 This is currently not stated in the <i>Throws:</i> element. I've implemented the requested additional 
 throws and they are easily achievable.
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-10-22; Reflector poll.</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 3 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+<p>
+There was discussion if `reserve()` is allowed to deallocate unused blocks,
+that materialized into LWG <iref ref="4380"/>.
+</p>
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4380.xml

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
 </section>
 <submitter>Matt Bentley</submitter>
 <date>23 Sep 2025</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>3</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -28,6 +28,15 @@ No-one has objected to this before, but if you want to, please speak up.
 <p/>
 Anyway, the <i>Complexity</i> of `reserve()` does not presently reflect this ability.
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-10-22; Reflector poll.</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 3 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+<p>
+An explicit objection was raised that the <i>Effects:</i> should state
+whether `reserve()` is allowed, or even required, to deallocate blocks.
+</p>
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4396.xml

@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
 <?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8' standalone='no'?>
 <!DOCTYPE issue SYSTEM "lwg-issue.dtd">
 
-<issue num="4396" status="New">
+<issue num="4396" status="LEWG">
 <title>Improve <code>inplace_vector(from_range_t, R&amp;&amp; rg)</code></title>
 <section><sref ref="[sequence.reqmts]"/><sref ref="[inplace.vector.cons]"/></section>
 <submitter>Hewill Kang</submitter>
 <date>01 Oct 2025</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>3</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -24,6 +24,16 @@ capacity of `inplace_vector`. However, we should reject it at compile time since
 Given that we do a lot of compile-time size checking in <code>&lt;simd&gt;</code>,
 it's worth applying that here as well. Compile-time errors are better than runtime ones.
 </p>
+
+<note>2025-10-22; Reflector poll. Status changed: New &rarr; LEWG and P3.</note>
+<p>
+General support for change, after LEWG approval.
+</p>
+<p>
+Suggestion was made that this could be extended to all containers,
+but is unlikely to be triggred in real word, as it requires ranges
+with static size greater than `size_t(-1)`.
+</p>
 </discussion>
 
 <resolution>

xml/issue4420.xml

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ incorrectly constrained for <tt>&lt;stdfloat&gt;</tt> types</title>
 <section><sref ref="[simd]"/></section>
 <submitter>Matthias Kretz</submitter>
 <date>15 Oct 2025</date>
-<priority>99</priority>
+<priority>1</priority>
 
 <discussion>
 <p>
@@ -60,6 +60,21 @@ to `float` should do, so it needs to be added (again without breaking <tt>float
 equivalent constraints.
 </p>
 
+<note>2025-10-22; Reflector poll.</note>
+<p>
+Set priority to 1 after reflector poll.
+</p>
+<p>
+We also need to update <i>Effects</i>. There are more places in <sref ref="[simd]"/>
+where <tt>float</tt> to <tt>float16_t</tt> and similar conversion are not supported.
+</p>
+<p>
+It was pointed out that similar issues happen for <tt>complex&lt;float16_t&gt;</tt>.
+There seem to be mismatch between language initialization rules and the intended
+usage based on library API.
+</p>
+</discussion>
+
 <superseded>
 <p>
 This wording is relative to <paper num="N5014"/>.