(Previous meta-issue: #4491)
At the June 2024 meeting, the following LWG issues were resolved in the C++ Working Paper.
❔ Not yet analyzed
❌ Not applicable
If an issue requires no action from implementers, we mark it as N/A. Categories:
- Pure wording clarifications with nothing to implement (these can be changes to non-normative text like examples and informative notes, or wording cleanups to normative text that don't impact observable behavior)
- Something that increases the restrictions placed on users, but implementers aren't expected to enforce those restrictions
- Fixes for obviously broken wording, where implementers would have done the right thing anyways
😸 Already implemented
Sometimes we cite LWG issues in product code comments as we're implementing their proposed resolutions. When the resolutions are officially accepted, we should remove the citations (as the default assumption is that we're implementing what the Standard says). If something is especially subtle, we can convert the citation to mention the relevant Standard section. Sometimes we should add test coverage - e.g. when the Standard begins requiring something that we were already doing, but weren't explicitly testing for.
- Already implemented, comments need to be removed and messages need to cite the Standard
- Implemented without comments
🩹 Patches an unimplemented feature
We should record this LWG issue in the GitHub issue tracking the feature. That way, we'll remember to verify it, but it doesn't represent net new work.
🐞 Not yet implemented
(Previous meta-issue: #4491)
At the June 2024 meeting, the following LWG issues were resolved in the C++ Working Paper.
❔ Not yet analyzed
❌ Not applicable
If an issue requires no action from implementers, we mark it as N/A. Categories:
concat_viewshould be freestanding😸 Already implemented
Sometimes we cite LWG issues in product code comments as we're implementing their proposed resolutions. When the resolutions are officially accepted, we should remove the citations (as the default assumption is that we're implementing what the Standard says). If something is especially subtle, we can convert the citation to mention the relevant Standard section. Sometimes we should add test coverage - e.g. when the Standard begins requiring something that we were already doing, but weren't explicitly testing for.
🩹 Patches an unimplemented feature
We should record this LWG issue in the GitHub issue tracking the feature. That way, we'll remember to verify it, but it doesn't represent net new work.
submdspanpreconditions do not forbid creating invalid pointermdspanLayouts #4516.reference_wrappercomparisons are not SFINAE-friendlyreference_wrapper#4522.concat_view::iterator's conversion constructorviews::concat#4514.views::concat(r)is well-formed whenris anoutput_rangeviews::concat#4514.🐞 Not yet implemented
charto sequences ofwchar_tcharto sequences ofwchar_t#4760compatible-joinable-rangesis underconstrainedcompatible-joinable-rangesis underconstrained #4761views::as_rvalueshould reject non-input rangesviews::as_rvalueshould reject non-input ranges #4762views::iota(views::iota(0))should be rejectedviews::iota(views::iota(0))should be rejected #4763views::adjacent<0>should reject non-forward rangesviews::adjacent<0>should reject non-forward ranges #4764ranges::ends_with's Returns misses difference castingranges::ends_with's Returns misses difference casting #4765std::basic_format_contextbe default-constructible/copyable/movable?std::basic_format_contextbe default-constructible/copyable/movable? #4758basic_format_argsshould not be default-constructiblebasic_format_argsshould not be default-constructible #4757