On Mon, 16 Sept 2024 at 13:53, Giuseppe D'Angelo <giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com> wrote: > > Hi Jonathan, > > Thank you for picking up (the pieces of) my patch.
I've pushed it to trunk now. Thanks for implementing it. > On 15/09/2024 17:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >> Oops, that seems wrong, it seems the correct definition in terms > >> of indirect_value_t should be > >> > >> remove_cvref_t<indirect_value_t<projected<I, Proj>>> > >> > >> as mentioned in P2248R8/5.9.1. > > That predates the note in p2609r3, because P2248R8 refers to P2609R0. > > In P2609R3 indirect_value_t became the exposition-only > > indirect-value-t which is our __detail::indirect_value_t. > > > > I think the working draft should be changed as those two papers > > suggest, but I'm not sure if there's any advantage to us making that > > change proactively. > > I agree; I'm not sure if is there any advantage at doing this change > (it's not that there's a massive duplication; plus, if it's not broken, > don't touch it?). I'm also not sure whether such a change to the > Standard could be considered editorial or if LWG would like to have a > look and approve the final result. P2248R8 contains a note to this end, > but it wasn't acted upon: > > > https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p2248r8.html#iterators Yeah I think both papers said "we could do this" but neither of them actually did it in the proposed wording. If you think it's worth changing, please file an LWG issue, thanks.
