[inplace.vector.modifiers] Ensure correct type of returned iterator #8453
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
eisenwave
added
the
P1-Important
Member
|
Why not use my +[0,n) suggestion? |
Member
|
as defined by https://eel.is/c++draft/iterator.requirements.general#11 |
Member
Author
|
I've never seen that syntax before and got spooked. I didn't even know there is a I'll change it to what you've suggested. |
eisenwave
force-pushed
the
fix-try-append-range
branch
from
dc186e6 to
3ea8188
Compare
jwakely
approved these changes
Nov 9, 2025
Contributor
|
Thanks! |
tkoeppe
removed
the
P1-Important
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #7486.
This is largely using @jwakely's proposed wording from #7486 (comment), with minor adjustments.
The PR fixes a normative defect that was introduced editorially in #7115. I assume that this needs no LWG issue because the defect is relatively new and wouldn't have existed without editorial errors anyway.