Re: [v3] LWG 2106: move_iterator::reference

2014-04-11 Thread Marc Glisse
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 5 March 2014 19:36, Marc Glisse wrote: Hello, this issue got delayed in LWG, apparently because of a failed "improvement" to the wording along the way (happens, that's ok), but there seems to be a consensus on the resolution and I don't really see

Re: [v3] LWG 2106: move_iterator::reference

2014-03-06 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 6 March 2014 09:35, Paolo Carlini wrote: > > Agreed. I remember being sloppy about issues not relative to a released > Standard. Yes, if it's just a change from one draft to another then it's just "work in progress" and not important to record that we've applied a resolution. > Well, in fact

Re: [v3] LWG 2106: move_iterator::reference

2014-03-06 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, On 03/05/2014 10:47 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 5 March 2014 21:35, Marc Glisse wrote: On Wed, 5 Mar 2014, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Please put _GLIBCXX_RESOLVE_DEFECTS (or whatever it is we use elsewhere) in the comment, rather than just "DR 2106". I think the point of that is to be able

Re: [v3] LWG 2106: move_iterator::reference

2014-03-05 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 5 March 2014 21:35, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2014, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >> Please put _GLIBCXX_RESOLVE_DEFECTS (or whatever >> it is we use elsewhere) in the comment, rather than just "DR 2106". I >> think the point of that is to be able to grep for all DR fixes >> (especially ones

Re: [v3] LWG 2106: move_iterator::reference

2014-03-05 Thread Marc Glisse
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Please put _GLIBCXX_RESOLVE_DEFECTS (or whatever it is we use elsewhere) in the comment, rather than just "DR 2106". I think the point of that is to be able to grep for all DR fixes (especially ones that aren't actually accepted as defects yet :-) Bel

Re: [v3] LWG 2106: move_iterator::reference

2014-03-05 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 5 March 2014 19:36, Marc Glisse wrote: > Hello, > > this issue got delayed in LWG, apparently because of a failed "improvement" > to the wording along the way (happens, that's ok), but there seems to be a > consensus on the resolution and I don't really see the point of waiting (it > changes cod

[v3] LWG 2106: move_iterator::reference

2014-03-05 Thread Marc Glisse
Hello, this issue got delayed in LWG, apparently because of a failed "improvement" to the wording along the way (happens, that's ok), but there seems to be a consensus on the resolution and I don't really see the point of waiting (it changes code that currently returns a reference to a tempor