On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 2:55 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 26 May 2021 at 20:11, Patrick Palka via Libstdc++ > <libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 26 May 2021, Tim Song wrote: > > > > > I noticed that output_iterator_wrapper still has a (non-void) > > > value_type. Perhaps we can get better coverage if it doesn't have one? > > > The existing tests should have caught this case with that change, at > > > least. > > > > Good point, and I guess it should be fine to make its pointer and > > reference void as well. I'm testing: > > Defining difference_type as void is also OK.
C++20 requires (new-style) output iterators to have a valid difference_type too (that requirement comes from weakly_incrementable).
