opensdh wrote: > You might want to know that CWG1835 is causing some disruption in the wild
I believe it, although the alternative (having to write `(it->end) < it->end` in the issue's example) seems like it would be just as user-hostile. > I wonder if we should consider deploying that change _NOT_ as a DR such that > it would only affect C++23+ conformance, that might alleviate some of the > pain points. If you think that would create fewer problems (like skew between libraries on their clients) than it solves, I'm not opposed to bringing that up in CWG. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98547 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
