<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>C++ Standard Library Active Issues List</title>
<style type="text/css">
  p {text-align:justify}
  li {text-align:justify}
  blockquote.note
  {
    background-color:#E0E0E0;
    padding-left: 15px;
    padding-right: 15px;
    padding-top: 1px;
    padding-bottom: 1px;
  }
  ins {background-color:#A0FFA0}
  del {background-color:#FFA0A0}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<table>
<tr>
  <td align="left">Doc. no.</td>
  <td align="left">N3318=12-0008</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td align="left">Date:</td>
  <td align="left">2012-01-16</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td align="left">Project:</td>
  <td align="left">Programming Language C++</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td align="left">Reply to:</td>
  <td align="left">Alisdair Meredith &lt;<a href="mailto:lwgchair@gmail.com">lwgchair@gmail.com</a>&gt;</td>
</tr>
</table>
<h1>C++ Standard Library Active Issues List (Revision R77)</h1>
<p>Revised 2012-01-16 at 20:01:49 UTC</p>

  <p>Reference ISO/IEC IS 14882:2011(E)</p>
  <p>Also see:</p>
  <ul>
      <li><a href="lwg-toc.html">Table of Contents</a> for all library issues.</li>
      <li><a href="lwg-index.html">Index by Section</a> for all library issues.</li>
      <li><a href="lwg-status.html">Index by Status</a> for all library issues.</li>
      <li><a href="lwg-defects.html">Library Defect Reports List</a></li>
      <li><a href="lwg-closed.html">Library Closed Issues List</a></li>
  </ul>
  <p>The purpose of this document is to record the status of issues
  which have come before the Library Working Group (LWG) of the INCITS PL22.16
  and ISO WG21 C++ Standards Committee. Issues represent
  potential defects in the ISO/IEC IS 14882:2011(E) document.  
  </p>

  <p>This document contains only library issues which are actively being
  considered by the Library Working Group, i.e., issues which have a
  status of <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>, 
  <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>, or <a href="lwg-active.html#Review">Review</a>. See
  <a href="lwg-defects.html">Library Defect Reports List</a> for issues considered defects and 
  <a href="lwg-closed.html">Library Closed Issues List</a> for issues considered closed.</p>

  <p>The issues in these lists are not necessarily formal ISO Defect
  Reports (DR's). While some issues will eventually be elevated to
  official Defect Report status, other issues will be disposed of in
  other ways. See <a href="#Status">Issue Status</a>.</p>

  <p>Prior to Revision 14, library issues lists existed in two slightly
  different versions; a Committee Version and a Public
  Version. Beginning with Revision 14 the two versions were combined
  into a single version.</p>

  <p>This document includes <i>[bracketed italicized notes]</i> as a
  reminder to the LWG of current progress on issues. Such notes are
  strictly unofficial and should be read with caution as they may be
  incomplete or incorrect. Be aware that LWG support for a particular
  resolution can quickly change if new viewpoints or killer examples are
  presented in subsequent discussions.</p>

  <p>For the most current official version of this document see 
  <a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/">http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/</a>.
  Requests for further information about this document should include
  the document number above, reference ISO/IEC 14882:2011(E), and be
  submitted to Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), 1250 Eye
  Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.</p>

  <p>Public information as to how to obtain a copy of the C++ Standard,
  join the standards committee, submit an issue, or comment on an issue
  can be found in the comp.std.c++ FAQ.
  </p>

<p><a name="submit_issue"></a><b>How to submit an issue</b></p>

<ol style="list-style-type:upper-alpha">
<li><a name="submit_issue_A"></a>
Mail your issue to the author of this list.
</li>
<li><a name="submit_issue_B"></a>
Specify a short descriptive title.  If you fail to do so, the subject line of your
mail will be used as the issue title.
</li>
<li><a name="submit_issue_C"></a>
If the "From" on your email is not the name you wish to appear as issue submitter,
then specify issue submitter.
</li>
<li><a name="submit_issue_D"></a>
Provide a brief discussion of the problem you wish to correct.  Refer to the latest
working draft or standard using [section.tag] and paragraph numbers where appropriate.
</li>
<li><a name="submit_issue_E"></a>
Provide proposed wording.  This should indicate exactly how you want the standard
to be changed.  General solution statements belong in the discussion area.  This
area contains very clear and specific directions on how to modify the current
draft.  If you are not sure how to word a solution, you may omit this part.
But your chances of a successful issue greatly increase if you attempt wording.
</li>
<li><a name="submit_issue_F"></a>
It is not necessary for you to use html markup.  However, if you want to, you can
&lt;ins&gt;<ins>insert text like this</ins>&lt;/ins&gt; and &lt;del&gt;<del>delete text like
this</del>&lt;/del&gt;.  The only strict requirement is to communicate clearly to
the list maintainer exactly how you want your issue to look.
</li>
<li><a name="submit_issue_G"></a>
It is not necessary for you to specify other html font/formatting
mark-up, but if you do the list maintainer will attempt to respect your
formatting wishes (as described by html markup, or other common idioms).
</li>
<li><a name="submit_issue_H"></a>
It is not necessary for you to specify open date or last modified date (the date
of your mail will be used).
</li>
<li><a name="submit_issue_I"></a>
It is not necessary for you to cross reference other issues, but you can if you
like.  You do not need to form the hyperlinks when you do, the list maintainer will
take care of that.
</li>
<li><a name="submit_issue_J"></a>
One issue per email is best.
</li>
<li><a name="submit_issue_K"></a>
Between the time you submit the issue, and the next mailing deadline
(date at the top of the Revision History), you <em>own</em> this issue. 
You control the content, the stuff that is right, the stuff that is
wrong, the format, the misspellings, etc.  You can even make the issue
disappear if you want.  Just let the list maintainer know how you want
it to look, and he will try his best to accommodate you.  After the
issue appears in an official mailing, you no longer enjoy exclusive
ownership of it.
</li>
</ol>


<h2>Revision History</h2>
<ul>
<li>R77: 2012-01-16 pre-Kona mailing<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>96 open issues, up by 52.</li>
<li>1550 closed issues, up by 1.</li>
<li>1646 issues total, up by 53.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following NAD issue: <a href="lwg-closed.html#2084">2084</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following 50 New issues: <a href="lwg-active.html#2071">2071</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2072">2072</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2073">2073</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2074">2074</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2075">2075</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2076">2076</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2077">2077</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2078">2078</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2079">2079</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2080">2080</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2081">2081</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2082">2082</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2083">2083</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2085">2085</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2086">2086</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2087">2087</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2088">2088</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2089">2089</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2090">2090</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2091">2091</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2092">2092</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2093">2093</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2094">2094</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2095">2095</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2097">2097</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2098">2098</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2099">2099</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2100">2100</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2101">2101</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2103">2103</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2104">2104</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2105">2105</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2106">2106</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2107">2107</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2108">2108</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2109">2109</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2110">2110</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2111">2111</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2112">2112</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2113">2113</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2114">2114</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2115">2115</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2116">2116</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2117">2117</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2118">2118</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2119">2119</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2120">2120</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2121">2121</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2122">2122</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2123">2123</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following 2 Tentatively Ready issues: <a href="lwg-active.html#2096">2096</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2102">2102</a>.</li>
<li>No issues changed.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R76: 
2011-09-06 post-Bloomington mailing
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>44 open issues, up by 19.</li>
<li>1549 closed issues, up by 9.</li>
<li>1593 issues total, up by 28.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following 2 NAD issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#2043">2043</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#2068">2068</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following 2 NAD Future issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#2051">2051</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#2055">2055</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following 6 Open issues: <a href="lwg-active.html#2052">2052</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2054">2054</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2057">2057</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2062">2062</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2063">2063</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2070">2070</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Pending NAD issue: <a href="lwg-closed.html#2046">2046</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Pending NAD Editorial issue: <a href="lwg-closed.html#2060">2060</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following 10 Ready issues: <a href="lwg-active.html#2044">2044</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2045">2045</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2047">2047</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2050">2050</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2053">2053</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2061">2061</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2064">2064</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2065">2065</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2067">2067</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2069">2069</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following 5 Review issues: <a href="lwg-active.html#2048">2048</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2049">2049</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2056">2056</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2058">2058</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2059">2059</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Tentatively Resolved issue: <a href="lwg-active.html#2066">2066</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 322 issues from WP to C++11: <a href="lwg-defects.html#149">149</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#296">296</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#419">419</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#427">427</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#430">430</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#471">471</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#473">473</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#498">498</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#539">539</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#556">556</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#564">564</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#565">565</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#630">630</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#659">659</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#671">671</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#676">676</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#688">688</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#696">696</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#704">704</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#711">711</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#716">716</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#723">723</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#724">724</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#727">727</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#752">752</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#753">753</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#758">758</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#765">765</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#774">774</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#780">780</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#788">788</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#810">810</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#811">811</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#814">814</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#817">817</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#819">819</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#821">821</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#835">835</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#836">836</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#838">838</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#847">847</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#853">853</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#854">854</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#857">857</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#859">859</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#860">860</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#861">861</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#865">865</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#866">866</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#868">868</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#869">869</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#870">870</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#871">871</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#872">872</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#876">876</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#878">878</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#881">881</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#883">883</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#885">885</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#886">886</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#888">888</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#890">890</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#891">891</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#893">893</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#894">894</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#896">896</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#898">898</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#899">899</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#900">900</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#904">904</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#907">907</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#909">909</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#911">911</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#920">920</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#921">921</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#922">922</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#925">925</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#929">929</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#931">931</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#934">934</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#938">938</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#939">939</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#943">943</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#948">948</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#949">949</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#951">951</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#954">954</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#956">956</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#957">957</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#960">960</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#962">962</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#963">963</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#965">965</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#967">967</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#968">968</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#970">970</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#974">974</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#975">975</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#978">978</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#981">981</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#982">982</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#984">984</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#986">986</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#987">987</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#990">990</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#991">991</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#993">993</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#994">994</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#997">997</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#998">998</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#999">999</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1004">1004</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1006">1006</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1011">1011</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1012">1012</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1014">1014</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1019">1019</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1021">1021</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1030">1030</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1033">1033</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1034">1034</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1037">1037</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1038">1038</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1039">1039</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1040">1040</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1044">1044</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1045">1045</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1065">1065</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1066">1066</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1070">1070</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1071">1071</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1073">1073</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1079">1079</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1089">1089</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1094">1094</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1095">1095</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1097">1097</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1098">1098</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1103">1103</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1104">1104</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1108">1108</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1110">1110</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1113">1113</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1114">1114</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1118">1118</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1123">1123</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1126">1126</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1130">1130</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1131">1131</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1133">1133</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1134">1134</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1136">1136</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1137">1137</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1138">1138</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1144">1144</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1152">1152</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1157">1157</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1158">1158</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1159">1159</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1170">1170</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1171">1171</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1177">1177</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1178">1178</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1180">1180</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1181">1181</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1182">1182</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1183">1183</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1187">1187</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1189">1189</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1191">1191</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1192">1192</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1193">1193</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1194">1194</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1195">1195</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1197">1197</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1198">1198</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1199">1199</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1204">1204</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1205">1205</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1206">1206</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1207">1207</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1208">1208</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1209">1209</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1215">1215</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1216">1216</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1218">1218</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1220">1220</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1221">1221</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1222">1222</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1227">1227</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1231">1231</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1234">1234</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1237">1237</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1240">1240</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1241">1241</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1245">1245</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1247">1247</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1249">1249</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1250">1250</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1252">1252</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1253">1253</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1254">1254</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1255">1255</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1256">1256</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1257">1257</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1261">1261</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1262">1262</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1264">1264</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1267">1267</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1270">1270</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1271">1271</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1276">1276</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1277">1277</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1278">1278</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1279">1279</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1280">1280</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1284">1284</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1285">1285</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1286">1286</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1287">1287</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1288">1288</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1292">1292</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1294">1294</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1295">1295</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1298">1298</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1299">1299</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1303">1303</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1306">1306</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1309">1309</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1310">1310</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1312">1312</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1316">1316</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1319">1319</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1323">1323</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1325">1325</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1332">1332</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1333">1333</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1334">1334</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1335">1335</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1337">1337</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1338">1338</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1339">1339</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1340">1340</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1349">1349</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1354">1354</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1360">1360</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1362">1362</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1363">1363</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1367">1367</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1368">1368</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1370">1370</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1372">1372</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1381">1381</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1384">1384</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1385">1385</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1386">1386</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1387">1387</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1388">1388</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1399">1399</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1400">1400</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1401">1401</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1402">1402</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1403">1403</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1404">1404</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1408">1408</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1414">1414</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1416">1416</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1417">1417</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1418">1418</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1420">1420</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1423">1423</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1424">1424</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1425">1425</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1426">1426</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1427">1427</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1428">1428</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1429">1429</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1430">1430</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1431">1431</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1432">1432</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1435">1435</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1436">1436</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1437">1437</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1438">1438</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1439">1439</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1440">1440</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1441">1441</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1448">1448</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1449">1449</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1474">1474</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1478">1478</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1479">1479</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1480">1480</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1487">1487</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1494">1494</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1497">1497</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1514">1514</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1516">1516</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1517">1517</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1518">1518</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1519">1519</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1520">1520</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1522">1522</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1524">1524</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1525">1525</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2000">2000</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2001">2001</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2004">2004</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2007">2007</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2008">2008</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2014">2014</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2017">2017</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2019">2019</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2020">2020</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2022">2022</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2027">2027</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2029">2029</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2030">2030</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2031">2031</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2032">2032</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2041">2041</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2042">2042</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Deferred to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1330">1330</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Deferred to NAD Future: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1521">1521</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Open to NAD Future: <a href="lwg-closed.html#2040">2040</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Deferred to Open: <a href="lwg-active.html#1450">1450</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Deferred to Ready: <a href="lwg-active.html#1214">1214</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 2 issues from New to Ready: <a href="lwg-active.html#2013">2013</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2015">2015</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 2 issues from Open to Ready: <a href="lwg-active.html#2010">2010</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2033">2033</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Review to Ready: <a href="lwg-active.html#2021">2021</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 2 issues from Deferred to Review: <a href="lwg-active.html#1169">1169</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#1175">1175</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Open to Review: <a href="lwg-active.html#2011">2011</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R75: 
2011-03-28 post-Madrid mailing
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>25 open issues, down by 71.</li>
<li>1540 closed issues, up by 80.</li>
<li>1565 issues total, up by 9.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following NAD issue: <a href="lwg-closed.html#2036">2036</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following 2 Open issues: <a href="lwg-active.html#2038">2038</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#2040">2040</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Ready issue: <a href="lwg-active.html#2039">2039</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Resolved issue: <a href="lwg-defects.html#2037">2037</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following 2 WP issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#2041">2041</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2042">2042</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from New to Deferred: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1521">1521</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 2 issues from Open to Deferred: <a href="lwg-active.html#1169">1169</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#1175">1175</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 7 issues from Open to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1318">1318</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1348">1348</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1358">1358</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1369">1369</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1374">1374</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1452">1452</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1461">1461</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 6 issues from Tentatively NAD to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1371">1371</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1413">1413</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1485">1485</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1486">1486</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#2006">2006</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#2026">2026</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Tentatively Ready to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1456">1456</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 2 issues from Open to NAD Future: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1396">1396</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1459">1459</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Tentatively NAD Future to NAD Future: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1320">1320</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 4 issues from New to Open: <a href="lwg-active.html#2012">2012</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2018">2018</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2033">2033</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2035">2035</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from New to Ready: <a href="lwg-active.html#2028">2028</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Review to Ready: <a href="lwg-active.html#2009">2009</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from NAD to Resolved: <a href="lwg-defects.html#343">343</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from NAD Editorial to Resolved: <a href="lwg-defects.html#485">485</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 3 issues from New to Resolved: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1523">1523</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2025">2025</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2034">2034</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 13 issues from Open to Resolved: <a href="lwg-defects.html#964">964</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#966">966</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#985">985</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1297">1297</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1345">1345</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1353">1353</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1364">1364</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1421">1421</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1460">1460</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1502">1502</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1504">1504</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1505">1505</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1507">1507</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 4 issues from Tentatively Ready to Resolved: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1457">1457</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1515">1515</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2023">2023</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2024">2024</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from New to Review: <a href="lwg-active.html#2021">2021</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Open to Review: <a href="lwg-active.html#2005">2005</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 3 issues from New to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1524">1524</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2008">2008</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2032">2032</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 5 issues from Open to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1252">1252</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1349">1349</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1448">1448</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1478">1478</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1487">1487</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 8 issues from Ready to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1279">1279</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1332">1332</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1385">1385</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1401">1401</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1408">1408</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1418">1418</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1420">1420</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1438">1438</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 22 issues from Tentatively Ready to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1215">1215</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1253">1253</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1310">1310</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1474">1474</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1479">1479</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1480">1480</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1494">1494</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1497">1497</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1514">1514</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2000">2000</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2001">2001</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2004">2004</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2007">2007</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2014">2014</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2017">2017</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2019">2019</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2020">2020</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2022">2022</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2027">2027</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2029">2029</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2030">2030</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2031">2031</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R74: 
2011-02-28 pre-Madrid mailing
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>96 open issues, up by 16.</li>
<li>1460 closed issues, up by 1.</li>
<li>1556 issues total, up by 17.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following 7 New issues: <a href="lwg-active.html#2021">2021</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2025">2025</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2028">2028</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2032">2032</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2033">2033</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2034">2034</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2035">2035</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Tentatively NAD issue: <a href="lwg-closed.html#2026">2026</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following 8 Tentatively Ready issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#2020">2020</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2022">2022</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2023">2023</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2024">2024</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2027">2027</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2029">2029</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2030">2030</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2031">2031</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Open to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1503">1503</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from New to Open: <a href="lwg-active.html#2016">2016</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Ready to Open: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1318">1318</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from NAD to Resolved: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1229">1229</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 65 issues from NAD Editorial to Resolved: <a href="lwg-defects.html#732">732</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#756">756</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#767">767</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#793">793</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#794">794</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#800">800</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#803">803</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#825">825</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#828">828</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#874">874</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#875">875</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#880">880</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#889">889</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#897">897</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#908">908</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#923">923</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#924">924</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#940">940</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#944">944</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#958">958</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#976">976</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1043">1043</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1046">1046</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1047">1047</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1048">1048</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1049">1049</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1050">1050</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1088">1088</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1090">1090</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1093">1093</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1106">1106</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1129">1129</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1143">1143</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1145">1145</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1146">1146</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1147">1147</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1160">1160</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1161">1161</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1162">1162</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1163">1163</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1165">1165</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1166">1166</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1172">1172</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1185">1185</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1196">1196</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1210">1210</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1211">1211</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1212">1212</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1225">1225</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1226">1226</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1244">1244</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1248">1248</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1266">1266</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1269">1269</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1272">1272</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1273">1273</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1274">1274</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1275">1275</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1281">1281</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1291">1291</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1300">1300</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1304">1304</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1305">1305</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1311">1311</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1329">1329</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 2 issues from Open to Tentatively NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1485">1485</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1486">1486</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 3 issues from New to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#2014">2014</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2017">2017</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2019">2019</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 8 issues from Open to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1456">1456</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1457">1457</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1474">1474</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1479">1479</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1494">1494</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1514">1514</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1515">1515</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2001">2001</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Review to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1480">1480</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R73: 
2010-11-29 Post-Batavia mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>80 open issues, down by 126.</li>
<li>1459 closed issues, up by 145.</li>
<li>1539 issues total, up by 19.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following 11 New issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1521">1521</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1523">1523</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2008">2008</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2012">2012</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2013">2013</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2014">2014</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2015">2015</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2016">2016</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2017">2017</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2018">2018</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2019">2019</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following 5 Open issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#2001">2001</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2003">2003</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2005">2005</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2010">2010</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2011">2011</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Resolved issue: <a href="lwg-defects.html#2002">2002</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Review issue: <a href="lwg-active.html#2009">2009</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Tentatively NAD issue: <a href="lwg-closed.html#2006">2006</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following 3 Tentatively Ready issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#2000">2000</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2004">2004</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2007">2007</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following WP issue: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1522">1522</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 3 issues from New to Deferred: <a href="lwg-active.html#1213">1213</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#1214">1214</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1330">1330</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Open to Deferred: <a href="lwg-active.html#1450">1450</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 14 issues from Open to Dup: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1350">1350</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1351">1351</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1352">1352</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1375">1375</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1411">1411</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1443">1443</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1451">1451</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1454">1454</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1458">1458</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1463">1463</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1470">1470</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1475">1475</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1476">1476</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1477">1477</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from New to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1331">1331</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 8 issues from Open to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#579">579</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1359">1359</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1361">1361</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1373">1373</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1376">1376</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1398">1398</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1446">1446</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1473">1473</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 2 issues from Tentatively NAD to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1190">1190</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1200">1200</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from WP to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#822">822</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 11 issues from Open to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1395">1395</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1442">1442</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1471">1471</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1472">1472</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1489">1489</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1495">1495</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1496">1496</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1509">1509</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1510">1510</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1511">1511</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1512">1512</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Review to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1281">1281</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from New to NAD Future: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1289">1289</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 6 issues from Open to NAD Future: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1406">1406</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1422">1422</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1484">1484</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1488">1488</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1493">1493</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1499">1499</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 2 issues from Tentatively NAD Future to NAD Future: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1173">1173</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1188">1188</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 2 issues from New to Open: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1252">1252</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1297">1297</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 3 issues from New to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1279">1279</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1318">1318</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1332">1332</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 6 issues from Open to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1385">1385</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1401">1401</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1408">1408</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1418">1418</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1420">1420</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1438">1438</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 42 issues from NAD Editorial to Resolved: <a href="lwg-defects.html#353">353</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#431">431</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#482">482</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#525">525</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#594">594</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#625">625</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#635">635</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#658">658</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#697">697</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#719">719</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#742">742</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#786">786</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#815">815</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#816">816</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#823">823</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#827">827</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#834">834</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#884">884</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#932">932</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#947">947</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#950">950</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#953">953</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#983">983</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1054">1054</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1055">1055</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1075">1075</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1100">1100</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1116">1116</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1117">1117</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1122">1122</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1135">1135</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1151">1151</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1174">1174</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1258">1258</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1260">1260</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1283">1283</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1293">1293</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1307">1307</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1321">1321</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1394">1394</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1405">1405</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1407">1407</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 5 issues from New to Resolved: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1290">1290</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1322">1322</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1324">1324</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1326">1326</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1328">1328</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 46 issues from Open to Resolved: <a href="lwg-defects.html#801">801</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1268">1268</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1327">1327</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1344">1344</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1346">1346</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1347">1347</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1355">1355</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1356">1356</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1357">1357</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1365">1365</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1366">1366</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1377">1377</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1378">1378</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1379">1379</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1380">1380</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1382">1382</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1383">1383</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1389">1389</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1390">1390</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1391">1391</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1392">1392</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1393">1393</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1397">1397</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1409">1409</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1410">1410</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1412">1412</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1445">1445</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1447">1447</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1453">1453</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1455">1455</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1462">1462</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1464">1464</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1465">1465</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1466">1466</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1467">1467</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1468">1468</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1469">1469</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1481">1481</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1482">1482</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1490">1490</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1491">1491</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1492">1492</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1498">1498</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1501">1501</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1508">1508</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1513">1513</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Open to Review: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1480">1480</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 2 issues from Open to Tentatively NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1371">1371</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1413">1413</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from New to Tentatively NAD Future: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1320">1320</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 3 issues from New to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1215">1215</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1253">1253</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1310">1310</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Open to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1497">1497</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 24 issues from NAD Editorial to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1360">1360</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1363">1363</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1367">1367</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1372">1372</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1381">1381</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1384">1384</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1386">1386</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1387">1387</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1388">1388</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1399">1399</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1400">1400</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1402">1402</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1403">1403</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1416">1416</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1417">1417</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1423">1423</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1424">1424</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1425">1425</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1426">1426</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1427">1427</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1429">1429</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1430">1430</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1431">1431</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1441">1441</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from New to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1294">1294</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 10 issues from Open to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1354">1354</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1362">1362</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1368">1368</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1370">1370</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1428">1428</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1435">1435</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1436">1436</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1437">1437</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1439">1439</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1440">1440</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 2 issues from Ready to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#868">868</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#951">951</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 33 issues from Tentatively Ready to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#956">956</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1118">1118</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1171">1171</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1181">1181</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1183">1183</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1191">1191</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1198">1198</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1207">1207</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1234">1234</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1240">1240</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1249">1249</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1292">1292</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1295">1295</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1316">1316</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1319">1319</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1323">1323</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1325">1325</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1333">1333</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1334">1334</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1335">1335</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1337">1337</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1338">1338</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1339">1339</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1340">1340</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1404">1404</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1414">1414</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1432">1432</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1449">1449</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1516">1516</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1517">1517</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1518">1518</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1519">1519</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1520">1520</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R72: 
2010-10-18 pre-Batavia mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>206 open issues, up by 141.</li>
<li>1314 closed issues, up by 36.</li>
<li>1520 issues total, up by 177.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following Dup issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1433">1433</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1444">1444</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following NAD Editorial issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1360">1360</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1363">1363</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1367">1367</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1372">1372</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1381">1381</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1384">1384</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1386">1386</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1387">1387</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1388">1388</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1394">1394</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1399">1399</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1400">1400</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1402">1402</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1403">1403</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1405">1405</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1407">1407</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1415">1415</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1416">1416</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1417">1417</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1419">1419</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1423">1423</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1424">1424</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1425">1425</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1426">1426</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1427">1427</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1429">1429</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1430">1430</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1431">1431</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1434">1434</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1441">1441</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1483">1483</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1500">1500</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1506">1506</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Open issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1344">1344</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1345">1345</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1346">1346</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1347">1347</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1348">1348</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1349">1349</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1350">1350</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1351">1351</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1352">1352</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1353">1353</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1354">1354</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1355">1355</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1356">1356</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1357">1357</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1358">1358</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1359">1359</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1361">1361</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1362">1362</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1364">1364</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1365">1365</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1366">1366</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1368">1368</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1369">1369</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1370">1370</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1371">1371</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1373">1373</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1374">1374</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1375">1375</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1376">1376</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1377">1377</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1378">1378</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1379">1379</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1380">1380</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1382">1382</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1383">1383</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1385">1385</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1389">1389</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1390">1390</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1391">1391</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1392">1392</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1393">1393</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1395">1395</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1396">1396</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1397">1397</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1398">1398</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1401">1401</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1406">1406</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1408">1408</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1409">1409</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1410">1410</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1411">1411</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1412">1412</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1413">1413</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1418">1418</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1420">1420</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1421">1421</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1422">1422</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1428">1428</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1435">1435</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1436">1436</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1437">1437</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1438">1438</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1439">1439</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1440">1440</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1442">1442</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1443">1443</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1445">1445</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1446">1446</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1447">1447</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1448">1448</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#1450">1450</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1451">1451</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1452">1452</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1453">1453</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1454">1454</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1455">1455</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1456">1456</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1457">1457</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1458">1458</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1459">1459</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1460">1460</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1461">1461</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1462">1462</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1463">1463</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1464">1464</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1465">1465</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1466">1466</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1467">1467</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1468">1468</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1469">1469</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1470">1470</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1471">1471</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1472">1472</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1473">1473</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1474">1474</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1475">1475</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1476">1476</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1477">1477</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1478">1478</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1479">1479</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1480">1480</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1481">1481</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1482">1482</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1484">1484</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1485">1485</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1486">1486</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1487">1487</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1488">1488</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1489">1489</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1490">1490</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1491">1491</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1492">1492</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1493">1493</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1494">1494</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1495">1495</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1496">1496</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1497">1497</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1498">1498</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1499">1499</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1501">1501</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1502">1502</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1503">1503</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1504">1504</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1505">1505</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1507">1507</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1508">1508</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1509">1509</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1510">1510</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1511">1511</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1512">1512</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1513">1513</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1514">1514</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1515">1515</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Tentatively Ready issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1404">1404</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1414">1414</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1432">1432</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1449">1449</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1516">1516</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1517">1517</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1518">1518</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1519">1519</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1520">1520</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1260">1260</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1181">1181</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1240">1240</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1249">1249</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1292">1292</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1295">1295</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1316">1316</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1319">1319</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1323">1323</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1325">1325</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1333">1333</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1334">1334</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1335">1335</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1337">1337</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1338">1338</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1339">1339</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1340">1340</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#956">956</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1118">1118</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1183">1183</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1234">1234</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R71: 
2010-08-25 post-Rapperswil mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>65 open issues, up by 2.</li>
<li>1278 closed issues, up by 7.</li>
<li>1343 issues total, up by 9.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1335">1335</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2008">2008</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1337">1337</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1338">1338</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1339">1339</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1340">1340</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2009">2009</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2010">2010</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2011">2011</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#996">996</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1119">1119</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD Concepts: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1076">1076</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#953">953</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Open: <a href="lwg-active.html#1169">1169</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#1175">1175</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#951">951</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#868">868</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Tentatively NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1190">1190</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1200">1200</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Tentatively NAD Future: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1188">1188</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Tentatively NAD Future: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1173">1173</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1198">1198</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1171">1171</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1191">1191</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1207">1207</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1187">1187</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1206">1206</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1278">1278</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R70: 
2010-03-26 post-Pittsburgh mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>63 open issues, down by 203.</li>
<li>1271 closed issues, up by 219.</li>
<li>1334 issues total, up by 16.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following NAD Editorial issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1321">1321</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1329">1329</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1319">1319</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1320">1320</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1322">1322</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1323">1323</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1324">1324</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1325">1325</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1326">1326</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1328">1328</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1330">1330</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1331">1331</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1332">1332</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1333">1333</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1334">1334</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Open issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1327">1327</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively Dup to Dup: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1219">1219</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1302">1302</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1308">1308</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1313">1313</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1314">1314</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#887">887</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1008">1008</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1068">1068</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1069">1069</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1153">1153</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1156">1156</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1228">1228</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively NAD to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#631">631</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#726">726</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#959">959</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1056">1056</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1099">1099</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1125">1125</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1176">1176</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1202">1202</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1223">1223</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1224">1224</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1246">1246</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1251">1251</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1259">1259</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1263">1263</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1265">1265</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1296">1296</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively NAD Concepts to NAD Concepts: <a href="lwg-closed.html#910">910</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1186">1186</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1185">1185</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1210">1210</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1212">1212</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1225">1225</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1244">1244</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1266">1266</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1269">1269</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1272">1272</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1275">1275</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1291">1291</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1305">1305</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1307">1307</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1311">1311</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#299">299</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#397">397</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#408">408</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#446">446</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#594">594</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#625">625</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#742">742</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#834">834</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#915">915</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1093">1093</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1151">1151</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1211">1211</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1248">1248</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#485">485</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#932">932</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#940">940</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#950">950</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#983">983</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1100">1100</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1135">1135</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively NAD Editorial to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#815">815</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#816">816</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#889">889</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1106">1106</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1115">1115</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1233">1233</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1239">1239</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1258">1258</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1283">1283</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1301">1301</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively Ready to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1090">1090</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1226">1226</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1273">1273</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1274">1274</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1293">1293</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1300">1300</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1304">1304</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1315">1315</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to NAD Future: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1154">1154</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1317">1317</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to NAD Future: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1052">1052</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively NAD Future to NAD Future: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1112">1112</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1121">1121</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1201">1201</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1238">1238</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1282">1282</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Open: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1234">1234</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1268">1268</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively Ready to Open: <a href="lwg-closed.html#579">579</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1187">1187</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1206">1206</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1278">1278</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Review: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1281">1281</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to Review: <a href="lwg-defects.html#868">868</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1159">1159</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#427">427</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#430">430</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#774">774</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#819">819</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#835">835</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#861">861</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#885">885</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#896">896</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#900">900</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#911">911</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1079">1079</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#296">296</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#471">471</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#473">473</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#539">539</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#671">671</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#836">836</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#854">854</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#860">860</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#865">865</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#871">871</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#872">872</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#920">920</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#921">921</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#939">939</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#954">954</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#957">957</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#960">960</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#962">962</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#963">963</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#967">967</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#968">968</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#974">974</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1011">1011</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1030">1030</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1094">1094</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1095">1095</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1097">1097</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1098">1098</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1104">1104</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1123">1123</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1134">1134</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1136">1136</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1144">1144</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1157">1157</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1194">1194</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1204">1204</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1216">1216</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1227">1227</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1237">1237</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively Ready to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#556">556</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#676">676</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#704">704</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#724">724</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#727">727</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#780">780</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#811">811</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#817">817</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#870">870</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#891">891</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#893">893</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#929">929</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#978">978</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#987">987</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#999">999</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1033">1033</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1034">1034</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1071">1071</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1089">1089</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1108">1108</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1110">1110</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1113">1113</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1114">1114</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1126">1126</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1130">1130</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1131">1131</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1133">1133</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1137">1137</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1138">1138</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1152">1152</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1158">1158</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1170">1170</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1177">1177</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1180">1180</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1182">1182</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1189">1189</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1192">1192</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1193">1193</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1195">1195</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1197">1197</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1199">1199</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1205">1205</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1208">1208</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1209">1209</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1218">1218</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1220">1220</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1221">1221</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1222">1222</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1231">1231</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1241">1241</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1245">1245</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1247">1247</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1250">1250</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1254">1254</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1255">1255</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1256">1256</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1257">1257</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1261">1261</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1262">1262</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1264">1264</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1267">1267</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1270">1270</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1271">1271</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1276">1276</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1277">1277</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1280">1280</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1284">1284</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1285">1285</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1286">1286</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1287">1287</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1288">1288</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1298">1298</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1299">1299</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1303">1303</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1306">1306</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1309">1309</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1312">1312</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R69: 
2010-02-12 pre-Pittsburgh mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>266 open issues, up by 61.</li>
<li>1052 closed issues, down by 3.</li>
<li>1318 issues total, up by 58.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1266">1266</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1268">1268</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1269">1269</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1272">1272</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1275">1275</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1278">1278</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1279">1279</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1281">1281</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1289">1289</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1290">1290</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1291">1291</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1292">1292</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1294">1294</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1295">1295</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1297">1297</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1302">1302</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1305">1305</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1307">1307</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1308">1308</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1310">1310</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1311">1311</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1313">1313</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1314">1314</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1316">1316</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1317">1317</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1318">1318</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Tentatively NAD issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1263">1263</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1265">1265</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1296">1296</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Tentatively NAD Editorial issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1283">1283</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1301">1301</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Tentatively NAD Future issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1282">1282</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Tentatively Ready issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1261">1261</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1262">1262</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1264">1264</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1267">1267</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1270">1270</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1271">1271</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1273">1273</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1274">1274</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1276">1276</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1277">1277</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1280">1280</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1284">1284</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1285">1285</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1286">1286</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1287">1287</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1288">1288</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1293">1293</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1298">1298</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1299">1299</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1300">1300</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1303">1303</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1304">1304</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1306">1306</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1309">1309</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1312">1312</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1315">1315</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from NAD to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#101">101</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from NAD Future to Open: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1248">1248</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Open: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1207">1207</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to Open: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1079">1079</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Tentatively Dup: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1219">1219</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Tentatively NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1125">1125</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1176">1176</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1202">1202</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1223">1223</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1224">1224</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1246">1246</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1251">1251</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1259">1259</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Tentatively NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#726">726</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#959">959</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to Tentatively NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#631">631</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Tentatively NAD Concepts: <a href="lwg-closed.html#910">910</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Tentatively NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1258">1258</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Tentatively NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#815">815</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1106">1106</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to Tentatively NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#816">816</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#889">889</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from NAD to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-closed.html#579">579</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from NAD Editorial to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1195">1195</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1131">1131</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1133">1133</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1137">1137</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1170">1170</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1180">1180</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1182">1182</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1193">1193</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1197">1197</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1199">1199</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1205">1205</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1209">1209</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1218">1218</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1221">1221</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1222">1222</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1245">1245</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1250">1250</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1254">1254</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1255">1255</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1256">1256</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1257">1257</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#704">704</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#724">724</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#811">811</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#817">817</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#870">870</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#891">891</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1033">1033</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1034">1034</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1089">1089</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1110">1110</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#893">893</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#978">978</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1177">1177</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#556">556</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#676">676</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#727">727</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#780">780</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#929">929</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1130">1130</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1247">1247</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Pending WP to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#970">970</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R68: 
2009-11-06 post-Santa Cruz mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>205 open issues, down by 77.</li>
<li>1055 closed issues, up by 120.</li>
<li>1260 issues total, up by 43.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following Dup issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1230">1230</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following NAD issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1229">1229</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1236">1236</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1243">1243</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following NAD Editorial issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1232">1232</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following NAD Future issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1235">1235</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1242">1242</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1248">1248</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1218">1218</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1219">1219</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1221">1221</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1222">1222</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1223">1223</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1224">1224</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1225">1225</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1234">1234</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1240">1240</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1244">1244</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1245">1245</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1246">1246</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1249">1249</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1250">1250</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1251">1251</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1252">1252</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1253">1253</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1254">1254</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1255">1255</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1256">1256</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1257">1257</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1258">1258</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1259">1259</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1260">1260</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Open issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1228">1228</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Ready issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1227">1227</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1237">1237</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Review issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1247">1247</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Tentatively NAD Editorial issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1233">1233</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1239">1239</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Tentatively NAD Future issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1238">1238</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Tentatively Ready issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1220">1220</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1226">1226</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1231">1231</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1241">1241</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1132">1132</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1148">1148</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#96">96</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#458">458</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#463">463</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#916">916</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#917">917</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#919">919</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#955">955</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#977">977</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1009">1009</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1020">1020</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1035">1035</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1042">1042</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1051">1051</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1064">1064</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#668">668</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#930">930</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1091">1091</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1102">1102</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively NAD to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#588">588</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#617">617</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#971">971</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively NAD Future to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1062">1062</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from NAD Concepts to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1143">1143</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1116">1116</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1117">1117</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1122">1122</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1129">1129</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1145">1145</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1146">1146</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1147">1147</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1155">1155</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1166">1166</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1172">1172</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1174">1174</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1179">1179</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1195">1195</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1196">1196</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#431">431</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#580">580</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#635">635</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#719">719</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#823">823</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#827">827</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#879">879</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#880">880</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#908">908</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#923">923</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#924">924</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#926">926</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#944">944</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#947">947</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#958">958</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1046">1046</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1048">1048</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1054">1054</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1055">1055</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1075">1075</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1088">1088</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1160">1160</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1161">1161</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1162">1162</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1163">1163</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1165">1165</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#828">828</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#897">897</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#976">976</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1043">1043</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1047">1047</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1049">1049</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1050">1050</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to NAD Future: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1120">1120</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1150">1150</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1184">1184</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1203">1203</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1217">1217</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD Future: <a href="lwg-closed.html#484">484</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#532">532</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#851">851</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#933">933</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#935">935</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#936">936</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#961">961</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1041">1041</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1053">1053</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively NAD Future to NAD Future: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1031">1031</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Open: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1118">1118</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1119">1119</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1151">1151</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1153">1153</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1156">1156</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1171">1171</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1173">1173</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1183">1183</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1191">1191</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1211">1211</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to Open: <a href="lwg-defects.html#430">430</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#834">834</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to Open: <a href="lwg-closed.html#397">397</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#408">408</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#835">835</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively NAD to Open: <a href="lwg-defects.html#625">625</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1123">1123</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1134">1134</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1135">1135</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1136">1136</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1144">1144</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1177">1177</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1194">1194</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1204">1204</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1216">1216</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#296">296</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#471">471</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#485">485</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#539">539</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#816">816</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#860">860</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#865">865</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#872">872</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#920">920</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#932">932</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#939">939</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#940">940</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#960">960</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#963">963</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#974">974</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#978">978</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1011">1011</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1030">1030</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1079">1079</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1098">1098</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#473">473</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#671">671</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#836">836</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#854">854</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#868">868</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#871">871</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#889">889</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#893">893</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#921">921</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#950">950</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#954">954</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#957">957</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#962">962</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#967">967</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#968">968</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#983">983</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1052">1052</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1094">1094</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1095">1095</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1097">1097</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1100">1100</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1104">1104</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1157">1157</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Review: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1130">1130</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Review: <a href="lwg-defects.html#556">556</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#631">631</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#676">676</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#727">727</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#929">929</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Tentatively NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1056">1056</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1099">1099</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Tentatively NAD Concepts: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1186">1186</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Tentatively NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1115">1115</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Tentatively NAD Future: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1121">1121</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1201">1201</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Tentatively NAD Future: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1112">1112</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1126">1126</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1138">1138</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1152">1152</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1158">1158</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1189">1189</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1192">1192</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1208">1208</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#987">987</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#999">999</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1071">1071</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1090">1090</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1108">1108</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1113">1113</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1114">1114</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#149">149</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#419">419</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#498">498</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#564">564</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#565">565</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#630">630</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#659">659</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#696">696</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#711">711</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#716">716</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#723">723</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#788">788</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#822">822</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#838">838</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#847">847</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#857">857</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#859">859</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#876">876</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#881">881</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#883">883</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#886">886</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#934">934</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1004">1004</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1178">1178</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively Ready to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1012">1012</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1019">1019</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R67: 
2009-09-25 pre-Santa Cruz mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>282 open issues, up by 32.</li>
<li>935 closed issues, down by 1.</li>
<li>1217 issues total, up by 31.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1187">1187</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1188">1188</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1189">1189</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1190">1190</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1191">1191</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1192">1192</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1193">1193</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1194">1194</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1195">1195</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1196">1196</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1197">1197</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1198">1198</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1199">1199</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1200">1200</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1201">1201</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1202">1202</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1203">1203</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1204">1204</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1205">1205</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1206">1206</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1207">1207</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1208">1208</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1209">1209</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1210">1210</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1211">1211</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1212">1212</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#1213">1213</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#1214">1214</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1215">1215</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1216">1216</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1217">1217</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from NAD to Open: <a href="lwg-defects.html#296">296</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from WP to Pending WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#970">970</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Review: <a href="lwg-defects.html#976">976</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1052">1052</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to Review: <a href="lwg-defects.html#780">780</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R66: 
2009-07-31 post-Frankfurt mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>250 open issues, down by 128.</li>
<li>936 closed issues, up by 171.</li>
<li>1186 issues total, up by 43.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following NAD issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1164">1164</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following NAD Concepts issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1149">1149</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1167">1167</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following NAD Editorial issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1168">1168</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1144">1144</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1145">1145</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1146">1146</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1147">1147</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1148">1148</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1150">1150</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1151">1151</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1152">1152</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1153">1153</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1154">1154</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1155">1155</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1156">1156</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1158">1158</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1159">1159</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1166">1166</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#1169">1169</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1170">1170</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1171">1171</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1172">1172</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1173">1173</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1174">1174</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#1175">1175</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1176">1176</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1177">1177</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1179">1179</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1180">1180</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1181">1181</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1182">1182</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1183">1183</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1184">1184</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1185">1185</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1186">1186</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Open issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1160">1160</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1161">1161</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1162">1162</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1163">1163</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1165">1165</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Ready issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1178">1178</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Review issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1157">1157</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Dup: <a href="lwg-closed.html#750">750</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#895">895</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#111">111</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#128">128</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#138">138</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#190">190</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#219">219</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#290">290</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#309">309</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#342">342</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#343">343</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#382">382</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#394">394</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#398">398</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#417">417</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#418">418</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#421">421</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#459">459</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#466">466</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#492">492</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#502">502</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#503">503</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#546">546</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#573">573</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#582">582</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#585">585</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#597">597</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#606">606</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#614">614</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#632">632</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#721">721</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#747">747</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#751">751</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#833">833</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#941">941</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#992">992</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1003">1003</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively NAD to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#568">568</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#644">644</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#667">667</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#669">669</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#701">701</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#702">702</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#785">785</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#863">863</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#901">901</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#903">903</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#946">946</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#988">988</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#995">995</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively Ready to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1002">1002</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to NAD Concepts: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1124">1124</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1127">1127</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1128">1128</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1139">1139</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1140">1140</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1141">1141</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1142">1142</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1143">1143</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD Concepts: <a href="lwg-closed.html#902">902</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#989">989</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1000">1000</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1007">1007</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1010">1010</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1015">1015</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1016">1016</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1017">1017</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1018">1018</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1026">1026</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1027">1027</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1028">1028</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1029">1029</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1032">1032</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1036">1036</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1057">1057</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1059">1059</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1072">1072</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1078">1078</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1081">1081</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1082">1082</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1083">1083</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1084">1084</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1085">1085</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1086">1086</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1092">1092</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1096">1096</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1105">1105</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to NAD Concepts: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1001">1001</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1005">1005</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1080">1080</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1087">1087</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1111">1111</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively NAD to NAD Concepts: <a href="lwg-closed.html#912">912</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#918">918</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1074">1074</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively NAD Editorial to NAD Concepts: <a href="lwg-closed.html#927">927</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1109">1109</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively Ready to NAD Concepts: <a href="lwg-closed.html#906">906</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#913">913</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#914">914</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#928">928</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1024">1024</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1063">1063</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1067">1067</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#718">718</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#873">873</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively NAD Editorial to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#424">424</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#825">825</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#830">830</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#837">837</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#862">862</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#867">867</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#884">884</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#945">945</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#952">952</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#969">969</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#972">972</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#973">973</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#979">979</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1023">1023</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1058">1058</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1060">1060</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1061">1061</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1077">1077</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1101">1101</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively Ready to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1013">1013</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1107">1107</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD Future: <a href="lwg-closed.html#255">255</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#423">423</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#523">523</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#708">708</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#760">760</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#839">839</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#877">877</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from CD1 to Open: <a href="lwg-defects.html#823">823</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from NAD Editorial to Open: <a href="lwg-closed.html#299">299</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#484">484</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#532">532</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#556">556</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#594">594</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#631">631</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#676">676</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#704">704</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#724">724</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#742">742</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#811">811</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#870">870</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#872">872</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to Open: <a href="lwg-closed.html#879">879</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#919">919</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#929">929</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#939">939</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#987">987</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1009">1009</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1093">1093</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively NAD to Open: <a href="lwg-closed.html#458">458</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively NAD Future to Open: <a href="lwg-closed.html#96">96</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively Ready to Open: <a href="lwg-closed.html#910">910</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#915">915</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#932">932</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#940">940</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#974">974</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#976">976</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#999">999</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1011">1011</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#149">149</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#419">419</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#430">430</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#498">498</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#564">564</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#565">565</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#630">630</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#659">659</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#696">696</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#711">711</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#716">716</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#723">723</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#788">788</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#834">834</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#838">838</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#847">847</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#857">857</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#859">859</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#876">876</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#881">881</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#883">883</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#886">886</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1004">1004</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#780">780</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively NAD to Ready: <a href="lwg-closed.html#822">822</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively Ready to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#934">934</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from NAD to Review: <a href="lwg-defects.html#871">871</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Review: <a href="lwg-closed.html#397">397</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#408">408</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#473">473</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#671">671</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#836">836</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#868">868</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#889">889</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#893">893</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#930">930</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#954">954</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#962">962</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#967">967</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#968">968</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively NAD to Review: <a href="lwg-closed.html#668">668</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively Ready to Review: <a href="lwg-defects.html#950">950</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1100">1100</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Tentatively NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#588">588</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#617">617</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#625">625</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#971">971</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Tentatively NAD Future: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1031">1031</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1062">1062</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1012">1012</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1019">1019</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively Ready to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#688">688</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#765">765</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#810">810</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#814">814</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#853">853</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#869">869</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#878">878</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#888">888</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#890">890</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#898">898</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#899">899</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#904">904</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#907">907</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#909">909</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#922">922</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#925">925</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#931">931</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#938">938</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#943">943</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#948">948</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#949">949</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#965">965</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#970">970</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#975">975</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#981">981</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#982">982</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#984">984</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#986">986</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#990">990</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#991">991</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#993">993</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#994">994</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#997">997</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#998">998</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1006">1006</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1014">1014</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1021">1021</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1037">1037</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1038">1038</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1039">1039</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1040">1040</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1044">1044</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1045">1045</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1065">1065</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1066">1066</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1070">1070</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1073">1073</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1103">1103</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R65: 
2009-06-19 pre-Frankfurt mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>378 open issues, up by 32.</li>
<li>765 closed issues, up by 0.</li>
<li>1143 issues total, up by 32.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1115">1115</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1116">1116</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1117">1117</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1118">1118</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1119">1119</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1120">1120</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1121">1121</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1122">1122</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1123">1123</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1124">1124</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1125">1125</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1126">1126</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1127">1127</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1128">1128</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1129">1129</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1130">1130</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1131">1131</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1132">1132</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1133">1133</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1134">1134</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1135">1135</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1136">1136</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1137">1137</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1138">1138</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1139">1139</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1140">1140</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1141">1141</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1142">1142</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1143">1143</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Open issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1112">1112</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1113">1113</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1114">1114</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Pending NAD Editorial to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#937">937</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Open: <a href="lwg-defects.html#696">696</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#716">716</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#727">727</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#865">865</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#900">900</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#911">911</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#916">916</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#917">917</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#920">920</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#933">933</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#935">935</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#941">941</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#947">947</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#951">951</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#953">953</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#954">954</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#955">955</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#956">956</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#977">977</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#978">978</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#985">985</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#989">989</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#996">996</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1033">1033</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1054">1054</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1056">1056</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1057">1057</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1059">1059</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1062">1062</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1068">1068</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1069">1069</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1071">1071</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1072">1072</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1076">1076</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1090">1090</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1092">1092</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1096">1096</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1098">1098</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1099">1099</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1105">1105</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1106">1106</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1108">1108</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1110">1110</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to Open: <a href="lwg-defects.html#817">817</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#971">971</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#992">992</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1004">1004</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1010">1010</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1012">1012</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1015">1015</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1019">1019</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Review: <a href="lwg-defects.html#780">780</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#835">835</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#897">897</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#919">919</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#939">939</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#957">957</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#983">983</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1001">1001</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1080">1080</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1091">1091</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1093">1093</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1094">1094</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1095">1095</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1097">1097</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1102">1102</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1104">1104</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1111">1111</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Review: <a href="lwg-defects.html#921">921</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#987">987</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1087">1087</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Tentatively NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#568">568</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#701">701</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#702">702</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#785">785</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#863">863</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#903">903</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#912">912</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#918">918</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#946">946</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#995">995</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1074">1074</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Tentatively NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#458">458</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#644">644</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#667">667</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#668">668</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#669">669</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to Tentatively NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#901">901</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively Ready to Tentatively NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#822">822</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#988">988</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Tentatively NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#837">837</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#862">862</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#867">867</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#927">927</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#945">945</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#952">952</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#969">969</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#972">972</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#973">973</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#979">979</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1058">1058</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1060">1060</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1061">1061</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1077">1077</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1101">1101</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1109">1109</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Tentatively NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#424">424</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#825">825</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#830">830</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#884">884</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to Tentatively NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1023">1023</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Tentatively NAD Future: <a href="lwg-closed.html#96">96</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#810">810</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#898">898</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#906">906</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#910">910</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#913">913</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#914">914</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#915">915</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#925">925</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#974">974</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#976">976</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#981">981</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#982">982</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#984">984</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#990">990</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#998">998</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#999">999</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1063">1063</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1067">1067</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1070">1070</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1073">1073</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1100">1100</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1103">1103</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1107">1107</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#688">688</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#814">814</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#899">899</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#907">907</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#909">909</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#934">934</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#938">938</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#940">940</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#943">943</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#950">950</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#965">965</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#970">970</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#975">975</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#986">986</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#991">991</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#993">993</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#994">994</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#997">997</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1002">1002</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1006">1006</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1011">1011</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1013">1013</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1014">1014</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1021">1021</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1024">1024</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1037">1037</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1038">1038</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1039">1039</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1040">1040</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1044">1044</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1045">1045</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1065">1065</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1066">1066</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R64: 
2009-05-01 mid-term mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>346 open issues, up by 19.</li>
<li>765 closed issues, up by 0.</li>
<li>1111 issues total, up by 19.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1093">1093</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1094">1094</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1095">1095</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1096">1096</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1097">1097</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1098">1098</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1099">1099</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1100">1100</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1101">1101</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1102">1102</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1103">1103</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1104">1104</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1105">1105</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1106">1106</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1107">1107</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1108">1108</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1109">1109</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1110">1110</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1111">1111</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from DR to CD1: <a href="lwg-defects.html#130">130</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#386">386</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#406">406</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#409">409</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#413">413</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#434">434</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#438">438</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#444">444</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#445">445</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#455">455</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#457">457</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#460">460</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#469">469</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#533">533</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to New: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1070">1070</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R63: 
2009-03-20 post-Summit mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>327 open issues, up by 96.</li>
<li>765 closed issues, up by 14.</li>
<li>1092 issues total, up by 110.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following NAD Editorial issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1022">1022</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following NAD Future issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#1025">1025</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#983">983</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#984">984</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#985">985</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#989">989</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#990">990</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#995">995</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#996">996</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#998">998</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#999">999</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1001">1001</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1033">1033</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1054">1054</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1056">1056</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1057">1057</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1058">1058</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1059">1059</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1060">1060</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1061">1061</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1062">1062</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1063">1063</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1067">1067</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1068">1068</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1069">1069</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1071">1071</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1072">1072</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1073">1073</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1074">1074</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1076">1076</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1077">1077</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1080">1080</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1090">1090</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1091">1091</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1092">1092</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Open issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#987">987</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1000">1000</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1007">1007</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1008">1008</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1016">1016</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1017">1017</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1018">1018</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1020">1020</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1026">1026</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1027">1027</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1028">1028</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1029">1029</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1030">1030</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1031">1031</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1032">1032</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1034">1034</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1035">1035</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1036">1036</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1041">1041</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1042">1042</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1046">1046</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1048">1048</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1051">1051</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1052">1052</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1053">1053</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1055">1055</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1064">1064</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1075">1075</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1078">1078</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1079">1079</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1081">1081</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1082">1082</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1083">1083</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1084">1084</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1085">1085</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1086">1086</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1087">1087</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1088">1088</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1089">1089</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Review issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#986">986</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#991">991</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#992">992</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#993">993</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#994">994</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#997">997</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1002">1002</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1003">1003</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1004">1004</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1005">1005</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1006">1006</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1009">1009</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1010">1010</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1011">1011</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1012">1012</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1013">1013</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1014">1014</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1015">1015</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1019">1019</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1021">1021</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1023">1023</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#1024">1024</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1037">1037</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1038">1038</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1039">1039</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1040">1040</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1043">1043</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1044">1044</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1045">1045</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1047">1047</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1049">1049</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1050">1050</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1065">1065</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1066">1066</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#1070">1070</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Tentatively Ready issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#988">988</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Dup: <a href="lwg-closed.html#905">905</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#942">942</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#980">980</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#874">874</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#875">875</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#732">732</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#793">793</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#794">794</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#800">800</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Pending NAD Editorial to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#683">683</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#892">892</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#803">803</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from NAD to Open: <a href="lwg-closed.html#466">466</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from NAD Future to Open: <a href="lwg-closed.html#111">111</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#138">138</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#149">149</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#219">219</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Open: <a href="lwg-defects.html#880">880</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#891">891</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#893">893</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#902">902</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#908">908</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#921">921</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#923">923</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#924">924</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#926">926</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#930">930</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#936">936</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#944">944</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#958">958</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#959">959</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#960">960</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#961">961</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#962">962</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#963">963</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#964">964</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#966">966</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#967">967</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#968">968</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to Open: <a href="lwg-defects.html#788">788</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Pending NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#937">937</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Review: <a href="lwg-closed.html#879">879</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#899">899</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#901">901</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#907">907</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#909">909</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#929">929</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#934">934</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#938">938</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#940">940</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#943">943</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#950">950</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#965">965</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#970">970</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#971">971</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#975">975</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Review: <a href="lwg-defects.html#817">817</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#904">904</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#922">922</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#928">928</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#931">931</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#932">932</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#948">948</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#949">949</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#890">890</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#765">765</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#822">822</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#853">853</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#869">869</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#878">878</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#888">888</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#752">752</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#753">753</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#758">758</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#821">821</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#866">866</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#894">894</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R62: 
2009-02-06 pre-Summit mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>231 open issues, up by 44.</li>
<li>751 closed issues, up by 0.</li>
<li>982 issues total, up by 44.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#939">939</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#940">940</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#941">941</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#942">942</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#943">943</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#944">944</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#945">945</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#946">946</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#947">947</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#948">948</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#949">949</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#950">950</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#951">951</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#952">952</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#953">953</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#954">954</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#955">955</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#956">956</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#957">957</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#958">958</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#959">959</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#960">960</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#961">961</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#962">962</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#963">963</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#964">964</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#965">965</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#966">966</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#967">967</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#968">968</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#969">969</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#970">970</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#971">971</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#972">972</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#973">973</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#974">974</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#975">975</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#976">976</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#977">977</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#978">978</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#979">979</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#980">980</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#981">981</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#982">982</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R61: 
2008-12-05 mid-term mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>187 open issues, up by 20.</li>
<li>751 closed issues, up by 0.</li>
<li>938 issues total, up by 20.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#919">919</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#920">920</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#921">921</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#922">922</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#923">923</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#924">924</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#925">925</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#926">926</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#927">927</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#928">928</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#929">929</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#930">930</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#931">931</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#932">932</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#933">933</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#934">934</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#935">935</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#936">936</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#937">937</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#938">938</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R60: 
2008-10-03 post-San Francisco mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>167 open issues, down by 25.</li>
<li>751 closed issues, up by 65.</li>
<li>918 issues total, up by 40.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following CD1 issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#882">882</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#879">879</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#880">880</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#891">891</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#893">893</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#897">897</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#898">898</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#899">899</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#900">900</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#901">901</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#902">902</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#903">903</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#904">904</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#905">905</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#906">906</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#907">907</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#908">908</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#909">909</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#910">910</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#911">911</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#912">912</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#913">913</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#914">914</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#915">915</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#916">916</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#917">917</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#918">918</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Open issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#881">881</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#883">883</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#884">884</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#885">885</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#886">886</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#887">887</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#889">889</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#890">890</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#895">895</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#896">896</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Pending NAD Editorial issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#892">892</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Ready issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#894">894</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Review issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#888">888</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to CD1: <a href="lwg-defects.html#818">818</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#820">820</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#843">843</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#845">845</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#846">846</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#856">856</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#858">858</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to CD1: <a href="lwg-defects.html#180">180</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#387">387</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#396">396</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#522">522</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#629">629</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#691">691</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#713">713</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#714">714</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#720">720</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#728">728</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#762">762</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#769">769</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#771">771</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#772">772</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#776">776</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#779">779</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#787">787</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#805">805</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#806">806</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#807">807</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#808">808</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#809">809</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#813">813</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#824">824</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#829">829</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#842">842</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#844">844</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#848">848</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#850">850</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#852">852</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to CD1: <a href="lwg-defects.html#23">23</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#675">675</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#692">692</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#698">698</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#709">709</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#734">734</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#804">804</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#823">823</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from WP to CD1: <a href="lwg-defects.html#44">44</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#49">49</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#76">76</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#91">91</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#92">92</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#98">98</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#103">103</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#109">109</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#117">117</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#118">118</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#120">120</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#123">123</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#136">136</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#153">153</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#165">165</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#167">167</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#171">171</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#179">179</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#182">182</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#183">183</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#184">184</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#185">185</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#186">186</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#187">187</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#198">198</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#200">200</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#201">201</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#202">202</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#206">206</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#214">214</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#221">221</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#225">225</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#226">226</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#228">228</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#229">229</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#230">230</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#231">231</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#232">232</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#233">233</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#234">234</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#235">235</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#237">237</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#238">238</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#239">239</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#240">240</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#241">241</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#242">242</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#243">243</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#247">247</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#248">248</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#250">250</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#251">251</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#252">252</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#253">253</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#254">254</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#256">256</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#258">258</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#259">259</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#260">260</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#261">261</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#262">262</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#263">263</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#264">264</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#265">265</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#266">266</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#268">268</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#270">270</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#271">271</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#272">272</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#273">273</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#274">274</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#275">275</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#276">276</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#278">278</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#280">280</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#281">281</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#282">282</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#283">283</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#284">284</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#285">285</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#286">286</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#288">288</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#291">291</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#292">292</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#294">294</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#295">295</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#297">297</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#298">298</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#300">300</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#301">301</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#303">303</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#305">305</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#306">306</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#307">307</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#308">308</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#310">310</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#311">311</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#312">312</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#315">315</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#316">316</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#317">317</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#318">318</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#319">319</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#320">320</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#321">321</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#322">322</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#324">324</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#325">325</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#327">327</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#328">328</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#329">329</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#331">331</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#333">333</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#334">334</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#335">335</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#336">336</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#337">337</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#338">338</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#339">339</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#340">340</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#341">341</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#345">345</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#346">346</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#347">347</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#349">349</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#352">352</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#354">354</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#355">355</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#358">358</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#359">359</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#360">360</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#362">362</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#363">363</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#364">364</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#365">365</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#369">369</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#370">370</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#371">371</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#373">373</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#375">375</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#376">376</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#379">379</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#380">380</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#381">381</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#383">383</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#384">384</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#389">389</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#391">391</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#395">395</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#400">400</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#401">401</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#402">402</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#403">403</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#404">404</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#405">405</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#407">407</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#410">410</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#411">411</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#412">412</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#414">414</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#415">415</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#416">416</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#420">420</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#422">422</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#425">425</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#426">426</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#428">428</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#432">432</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#435">435</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#436">436</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#441">441</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#442">442</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#443">443</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#448">448</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#449">449</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#453">453</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#456">456</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#461">461</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#464">464</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#465">465</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#467">467</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#468">468</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#474">474</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#475">475</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#478">478</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#488">488</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#495">495</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#496">496</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#497">497</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#505">505</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#507">507</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#508">508</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#518">518</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#519">519</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#520">520</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#521">521</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#524">524</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#527">527</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#530">530</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#531">531</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#534">534</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#535">535</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#537">537</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#538">538</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#540">540</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#541">541</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#542">542</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#543">543</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#545">545</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#550">550</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#551">551</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#552">552</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#559">559</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#561">561</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#562">562</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#563">563</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#566">566</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#567">567</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#574">574</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#575">575</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#576">576</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#577">577</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#578">578</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#581">581</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#586">586</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#589">589</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#593">593</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#595">595</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#596">596</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#607">607</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#608">608</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#609">609</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#610">610</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#611">611</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#612">612</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#613">613</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#616">616</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#618">618</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#619">619</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#620">620</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#621">621</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#622">622</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#623">623</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#624">624</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#628">628</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#634">634</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#638">638</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#640">640</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#643">643</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#646">646</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#650">650</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#651">651</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#652">652</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#654">654</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#655">655</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#660">660</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#661">661</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#664">664</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#665">665</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#666">666</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#672">672</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#673">673</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#674">674</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#677">677</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#678">678</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#679">679</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#680">680</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#681">681</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#682">682</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#685">685</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#687">687</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#689">689</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#693">693</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#694">694</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#695">695</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#699">699</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#700">700</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#703">703</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#705">705</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#706">706</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#710">710</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#712">712</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#715">715</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#722">722</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#740">740</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#743">743</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#744">744</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#746">746</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#749">749</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#755">755</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#759">759</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#761">761</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#766">766</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#768">768</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#770">770</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#775">775</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#777">777</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#778">778</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#781">781</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#782">782</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#783">783</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#789">789</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#792">792</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#798">798</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Dup: <a href="lwg-closed.html#670">670</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#849">849</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#855">855</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#871">871</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#454">454</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#832">832</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#811">811</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#812">812</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#841">841</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#864">864</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#870">870</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#872">872</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#299">299</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#484">484</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#556">556</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#631">631</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#676">676</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#704">704</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#724">724</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#742">742</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Pending NAD Editorial to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#532">532</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#594">594</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#717">717</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#725">725</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#738">738</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Open: <a href="lwg-closed.html#721">721</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#751">751</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#814">814</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#816">816</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#817">817</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#819">819</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#827">827</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#836">836</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#838">838</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#847">847</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#857">857</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#859">859</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#860">860</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#861">861</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#868">868</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#873">873</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#876">876</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#877">877</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Pending NAD Editorial to Open: <a href="lwg-closed.html#424">424</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#625">625</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to Open: <a href="lwg-closed.html#851">851</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#788">788</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#821">821</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#866">866</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#753">753</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#752">752</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#758">758</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#803">803</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Review: <a href="lwg-defects.html#765">765</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#822">822</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#853">853</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#854">854</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#869">869</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#878">878</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from TC to TC1: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1">1</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#3">3</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#5">5</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#7">7</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#8">8</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#9">9</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#11">11</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#13">13</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#14">14</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#15">15</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#16">16</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#17">17</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#18">18</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#19">19</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#20">20</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#21">21</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#22">22</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#24">24</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#25">25</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#26">26</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#27">27</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#28">28</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#29">29</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#30">30</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#31">31</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#32">32</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#33">33</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#34">34</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#35">35</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#36">36</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#37">37</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#38">38</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#39">39</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#40">40</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#41">41</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#42">42</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#46">46</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#47">47</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#48">48</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#50">50</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#51">51</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#52">52</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#53">53</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#54">54</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#55">55</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#56">56</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#57">57</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#59">59</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#60">60</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#61">61</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#62">62</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#63">63</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#64">64</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#66">66</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#68">68</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#69">69</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#70">70</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#71">71</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#74">74</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#75">75</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#78">78</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#79">79</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#80">80</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#83">83</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#86">86</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#90">90</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#106">106</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#108">108</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#110">110</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#112">112</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#114">114</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#115">115</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#119">119</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#122">122</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#124">124</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#125">125</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#126">126</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#127">127</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#129">129</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#132">132</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#133">133</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#134">134</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#137">137</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#139">139</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#141">141</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#142">142</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#144">144</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#146">146</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#147">147</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#148">148</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#150">150</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#151">151</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#152">152</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#154">154</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#155">155</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#156">156</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#158">158</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#159">159</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#160">160</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#161">161</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#164">164</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#168">168</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#169">169</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#170">170</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#172">172</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#173">173</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#174">174</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#175">175</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#176">176</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#181">181</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#189">189</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#193">193</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#195">195</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#199">199</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#208">208</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#209">209</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#210">210</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#211">211</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#212">212</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#217">217</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#220">220</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#222">222</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#223">223</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#224">224</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#227">227</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R59: 
2008-08-22 pre-San Francisco mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>192 open issues, up by 9.</li>
<li>686 closed issues, up by 0.</li>
<li>878 issues total, up by 9.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#870">870</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#871">871</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#872">872</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#873">873</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#874">874</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#875">875</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#876">876</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#877">877</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#878">878</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R58: 
2008-07-28 mid-term mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>183 open issues, up by 12.</li>
<li>686 closed issues, down by 4.</li>
<li>869 issues total, up by 8.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#862">862</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#863">863</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#864">864</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#865">865</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#866">866</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#867">867</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#868">868</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#869">869</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Pending NAD Editorial to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#393">393</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#557">557</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#592">592</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#754">754</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#757">757</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Pending WP to Open: <a href="lwg-closed.html#644">644</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from WP to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#387">387</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#629">629</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Pending NAD Editorial to Review: <a href="lwg-defects.html#709">709</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R57: 
2008-06-27 post-Sophia Antipolis mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>171 open issues, down by 20.</li>
<li>690 closed issues, up by 43.</li>
<li>861 issues total, up by 23.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following NAD issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#840">840</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#841">841</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#843">843</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#845">845</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#846">846</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#847">847</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#849">849</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#853">853</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#854">854</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#855">855</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#856">856</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#857">857</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#858">858</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#859">859</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#860">860</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#861">861</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Open issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#839">839</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Ready issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#842">842</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#844">844</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#848">848</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#850">850</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#852">852</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Review issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#851">851</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#826">826</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#570">570</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#786">786</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#831">831</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#756">756</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#767">767</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Open: <a href="lwg-defects.html#723">723</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#726">726</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#794">794</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#815">815</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#825">825</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#830">830</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#833">833</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#834">834</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to Open: <a href="lwg-defects.html#471">471</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to Open: <a href="lwg-defects.html#539">539</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#711">711</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#713">713</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#714">714</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#769">769</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#772">772</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#779">779</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#787">787</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#805">805</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#806">806</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#807">807</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#808">808</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#809">809</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#813">813</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#824">824</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#829">829</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#180">180</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#396">396</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#522">522</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#720">720</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#762">762</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#691">691</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#728">728</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#771">771</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#776">776</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Review: <a href="lwg-defects.html#692">692</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#698">698</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#752">752</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#804">804</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#823">823</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#828">828</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#832">832</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Review: <a href="lwg-defects.html#23">23</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#675">675</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#734">734</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#803">803</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to Review: <a href="lwg-defects.html#758">758</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#387">387</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#518">518</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#550">550</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#574">574</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#595">595</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#596">596</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#612">612</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#618">618</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#629">629</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#638">638</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#672">672</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#673">673</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#685">685</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#710">710</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#715">715</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#722">722</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#740">740</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#743">743</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#744">744</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#746">746</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#749">749</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#755">755</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#759">759</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#761">761</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#766">766</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#768">768</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#770">770</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#775">775</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#777">777</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#778">778</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#781">781</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#782">782</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#783">783</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#789">789</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#792">792</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#798">798</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R56: 
2008-05-16 pre-Sophia Antipolis mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>191 open issues, up by 24.</li>
<li>647 closed issues, up by 1.</li>
<li>838 issues total, up by 25.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#814">814</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#815">815</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#816">816</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#817">817</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#818">818</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#819">819</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#820">820</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#821">821</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#822">822</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#823">823</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#824">824</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#825">825</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#826">826</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#827">827</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#828">828</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#829">829</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#830">830</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#831">831</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#832">832</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#833">833</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#834">834</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#835">835</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#836">836</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#837">837</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#838">838</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#802">802</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R55: 
2008-03-14 post-Bellevue mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>167 open issues, down by 39.</li>
<li>646 closed issues, up by 65.</li>
<li>813 issues total, up by 26.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following Dup issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#795">795</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following NAD issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#790">790</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#791">791</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#796">796</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#797">797</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#799">799</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#788">788</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#794">794</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#802">802</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#804">804</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#805">805</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#806">806</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#807">807</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#808">808</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#809">809</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#810">810</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#811">811</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#812">812</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#813">813</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Open issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#793">793</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#800">800</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#801">801</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#803">803</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Ready issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#789">789</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#792">792</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#798">798</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from NAD Future to Dup: <a href="lwg-closed.html#116">116</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from NAD Future to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#188">188</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#323">323</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#729">729</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#730">730</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#731">731</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#733">733</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#735">735</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#736">736</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#737">737</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#739">739</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#741">741</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#745">745</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#748">748</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#763">763</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#764">764</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#773">773</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#784">784</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#388">388</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#462">462</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#579">579</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#627">627</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#653">653</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#686">686</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#707">707</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from NAD Future to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#140">140</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#390">390</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#529">529</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#626">626</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#645">645</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#684">684</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from NAD Future to Open: <a href="lwg-closed.html#128">128</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#180">180</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#190">190</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Open: <a href="lwg-closed.html#617">617</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#718">718</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#719">719</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#720">720</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#724">724</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#732">732</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#734">734</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#742">742</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#747">747</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#750">750</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#753">753</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#756">756</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#760">760</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#762">762</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#767">767</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#774">774</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to Open: <a href="lwg-defects.html#675">675</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#676">676</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#688">688</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Pending NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#709">709</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#717">717</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#725">725</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#738">738</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#754">754</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#757">757</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Pending NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#424">424</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#557">557</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#625">625</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#710">710</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#715">715</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#722">722</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#740">740</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#743">743</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#744">744</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#746">746</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#749">749</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#755">755</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#758">758</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#759">759</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#761">761</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#766">766</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#768">768</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#770">770</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#775">775</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#777">777</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#778">778</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#781">781</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#782">782</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#783">783</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#387">387</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#471">471</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#550">550</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#612">612</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#629">629</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#673">673</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#518">518</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#574">574</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#596">596</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#618">618</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#638">638</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#672">672</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#685">685</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Review: <a href="lwg-defects.html#711">711</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#728">728</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#771">771</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#776">776</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Review: <a href="lwg-defects.html#539">539</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#561">561</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#562">562</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#563">563</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#567">567</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#581">581</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#620">620</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#621">621</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#622">622</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#623">623</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#624">624</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#661">661</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#664">664</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#665">665</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#666">666</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#674">674</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#679">679</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#680">680</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#687">687</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#689">689</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#693">693</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#694">694</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#695">695</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#700">700</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#703">703</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#705">705</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#706">706</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively Ready to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#527">527</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R54: 
2008-02-01 pre-Bellevue mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>206 open issues, up by 23.</li>
<li>581 closed issues, up by 0.</li>
<li>787 issues total, up by 23.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#765">765</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#766">766</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#767">767</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#768">768</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#769">769</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#770">770</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#771">771</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#772">772</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#773">773</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#774">774</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#775">775</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#776">776</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#777">777</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#778">778</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#779">779</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#780">780</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#781">781</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#782">782</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#783">783</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#784">784</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#785">785</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#786">786</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#787">787</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from NAD Future to Dup: <a href="lwg-closed.html#105">105</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#348">348</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from NAD Future to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#353">353</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#697">697</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from NAD Future to Open: <a href="lwg-closed.html#388">388</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#527">527</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R53: 
2007-12-09 mid-term mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>183 open issues, up by 11.</li>
<li>581 closed issues, down by 1.</li>
<li>764 issues total, up by 10.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#755">755</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#756">756</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#757">757</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#758">758</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#759">759</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#760">760</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#761">761</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#762">762</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#763">763</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#764">764</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from NAD to Open: <a href="lwg-closed.html#463">463</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Pending WP to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#607">607</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#608">608</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#654">654</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#655">655</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#677">677</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#682">682</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R52: 
2007-10-19 post-Kona mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>172 open issues, up by 4.</li>
<li>582 closed issues, up by 27.</li>
<li>754 issues total, up by 31.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#724">724</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#725">725</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#726">726</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#727">727</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#728">728</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#729">729</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#730">730</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#731">731</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#732">732</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#733">733</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#734">734</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#735">735</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#736">736</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#737">737</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#738">738</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#739">739</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#740">740</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#741">741</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#742">742</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#743">743</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#744">744</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#745">745</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#746">746</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#747">747</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#748">748</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#749">749</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#750">750</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#751">751</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#752">752</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#753">753</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#754">754</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from NAD Future to Dup: <a href="lwg-closed.html#77">77</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#350">350</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#639">639</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#657">657</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#663">663</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#548">548</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Open: <a href="lwg-closed.html#546">546</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#550">550</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#564">564</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#565">565</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#573">573</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#585">585</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#588">588</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#627">627</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#629">629</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#630">630</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#632">632</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#635">635</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#653">653</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#659">659</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#667">667</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#668">668</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#669">669</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#670">670</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#671">671</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#673">673</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#686">686</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#704">704</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#707">707</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#708">708</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Pending NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#393">393</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#592">592</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Pending WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#607">607</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#608">608</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#654">654</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#655">655</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#677">677</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#682">682</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#561">561</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#562">562</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#563">563</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#567">567</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#581">581</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#595">595</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#620">620</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#621">621</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#622">622</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#623">623</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#624">624</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#661">661</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#664">664</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#665">665</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#666">666</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#674">674</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#675">675</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#676">676</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#679">679</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#687">687</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#688">688</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#689">689</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#693">693</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#694">694</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#695">695</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#700">700</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#703">703</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#705">705</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#706">706</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#680">680</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Review: <a href="lwg-defects.html#574">574</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#596">596</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#618">618</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#638">638</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#645">645</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#672">672</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#684">684</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#685">685</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#691">691</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#552">552</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#634">634</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#650">650</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#651">651</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#652">652</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#678">678</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#681">681</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#699">699</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#712">712</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#258">258</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#401">401</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#524">524</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#488">488</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#577">577</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#660">660</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R51: 
2007-09-09 pre-Kona mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>168 open issues, up by 15.</li>
<li>555 closed issues, up by 0.</li>
<li>723 issues total, up by 15.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#709">709</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#710">710</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#711">711</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#712">712</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#713">713</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#714">714</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#715">715</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#716">716</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#717">717</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#718">718</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#719">719</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#720">720</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#721">721</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#722">722</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#723">723</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R50: 
2007-08-05 post-Toronto mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>153 open issues, down by 5.</li>
<li>555 closed issues, up by 17.</li>
<li>708 issues total, up by 12.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#697">697</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#698">698</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#699">699</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#700">700</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#701">701</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#702">702</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#703">703</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#704">704</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#705">705</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#706">706</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#707">707</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#708">708</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#583">583</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#584">584</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#662">662</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#528">528</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#637">637</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#647">647</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#658">658</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#690">690</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#525">525</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Pending NAD Editorial to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#553">553</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#571">571</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#591">591</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#633">633</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#636">636</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#641">641</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#642">642</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#648">648</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#649">649</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#656">656</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Open: <a href="lwg-closed.html#579">579</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#631">631</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#680">680</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Pending WP to Open: <a href="lwg-defects.html#258">258</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to Pending WP: <a href="lwg-closed.html#644">644</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#577">577</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#660">660</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#488">488</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Review: <a href="lwg-defects.html#518">518</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to TRDec: <a href="lwg-defects.html#604">604</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from DR to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#453">453</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#531">531</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#551">551</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#566">566</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#628">628</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#640">640</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#643">643</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#646">646</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R49: 
2007-06-23 pre-Toronto mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>158 open issues, up by 13.</li>
<li>538 closed issues, up by 7.</li>
<li>696 issues total, up by 20.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#677">677</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#678">678</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#679">679</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#680">680</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#681">681</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#682">682</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#684">684</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#685">685</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#686">686</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#687">687</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#688">688</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#689">689</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#690">690</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#691">691</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#692">692</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#693">693</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#694">694</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#695">695</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#696">696</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Pending NAD Editorial issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#683">683</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#587">587</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#590">590</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Pending NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#636">636</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#642">642</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#648">648</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#649">649</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R48: 
2007-05-06 post-Oxford mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>145 open issues, down by 33.</li>
<li>531 closed issues, up by 53.</li>
<li>676 issues total, up by 20.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-closed.html#657">657</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#658">658</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#659">659</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#660">660</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#661">661</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#662">662</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#663">663</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#664">664</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#665">665</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#666">666</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#667">667</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#668">668</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#669">669</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#670">670</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#671">671</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#672">672</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#673">673</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#674">674</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#675">675</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#676">676</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively Ready to Dup: <a href="lwg-closed.html#479">479</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#536">536</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively Ready to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#385">385</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#463">463</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#466">466</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#470">470</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#515">515</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#526">526</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#547">547</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#560">560</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#572">572</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from NAD to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#351">351</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#357">357</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#368">368</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#499">499</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#504">504</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#512">512</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#513">513</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#514">514</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#516">516</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#544">544</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#549">549</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#555">555</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#558">558</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively Ready to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-defects.html#482">482</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#615">615</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from NAD_Future to NAD Future: <a href="lwg-closed.html#77">77</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#105">105</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#111">111</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#116">116</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#128">128</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#138">138</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#140">140</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#149">149</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#180">180</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#188">188</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#190">190</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#219">219</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#323">323</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#348">348</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#350">350</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#353">353</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#388">388</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#390">390</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively Ready to Open: <a href="lwg-defects.html#471">471</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Pending NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#633">633</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#641">641</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#656">656</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively Ready to Pending NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#532">532</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#553">553</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#571">571</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#591">591</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#594">594</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively Ready to Pending WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#258">258</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#566">566</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#628">628</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#640">640</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#643">643</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#644">644</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#646">646</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#531">531</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#551">551</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#604">604</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to TRDec: <a href="lwg-defects.html#598">598</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#599">599</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#600">600</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#601">601</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#602">602</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#603">603</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#605">605</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Ready to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#543">543</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#545">545</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Tentatively Ready to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#201">201</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#206">206</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#233">233</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#254">254</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#416">416</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#422">422</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#456">456</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#534">534</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#542">542</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#559">559</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#575">575</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#576">576</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#578">578</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#586">586</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#589">589</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#593">593</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#609">609</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#610">610</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#611">611</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#613">613</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#616">616</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#619">619</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R47: 
2007-03-09 pre-Oxford mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>178 open issues, up by 37.</li>
<li>478 closed issues, up by 0.</li>
<li>656 issues total, up by 37.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following New issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#620">620</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#621">621</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#622">622</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#623">623</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#624">624</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#627">627</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#628">628</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#629">629</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#630">630</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#631">631</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#632">632</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#633">633</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#634">634</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#635">635</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#636">636</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#637">637</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#638">638</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#639">639</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#640">640</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#641">641</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#642">642</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#643">643</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#644">644</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#645">645</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#646">646</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#647">647</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#648">648</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#649">649</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#650">650</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#651">651</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#652">652</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#653">653</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#654">654</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#655">655</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#656">656</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Open issues: <a href="lwg-defects.html#625">625</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#626">626</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Open: <a href="lwg-closed.html#570">570</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#580">580</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#582">582</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#590">590</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#612">612</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#614">614</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from New to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-closed.html#547">547</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#553">553</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#560">560</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#571">571</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#572">572</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#575">575</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#576">576</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#578">578</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#586">586</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#589">589</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#591">591</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#593">593</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#594">594</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#609">609</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#610">610</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#611">611</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#613">613</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#615">615</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#616">616</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#619">619</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Open to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#201">201</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#206">206</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#233">233</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#254">254</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#258">258</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#385">385</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#416">416</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#422">422</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#456">456</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#463">463</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#466">466</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#470">470</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#471">471</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#479">479</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#482">482</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#515">515</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#526">526</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#532">532</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#536">536</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#542">542</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#559">559</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issues from Review to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.html#534">534</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R46: 
2007-01-12 mid-term mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>141 open issues, up by 11.</li>
<li>478 closed issues, down by 1.</li>
<li>619 issues total, up by 10.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added new issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#610">610</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#611">611</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#612">612</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#613">613</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#614">614</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#615">615</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#616">616</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#617">617</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#618">618</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#619">619</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R45: 
2006-11-03 post-Portland mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>130 open issues, up by 0.</li>
<li>479 closed issues, up by 17.</li>
<li>609 issues total, up by 17.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Moved issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#520">520</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#521">521</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#530">530</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#535">535</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#537">537</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#538">538</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#540">540</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#541">541</a> to WP.</li>
<li>Moved issues <a href="lwg-closed.html#504">504</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#512">512</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#516">516</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#544">544</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#549">549</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#554">554</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#555">555</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#558">558</a> to NAD.</li>
<li>Moved issue <a href="lwg-closed.html#569">569</a> to Dup.</li>
<li>Moved issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#518">518</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#523">523</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#524">524</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#542">542</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#556">556</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#557">557</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#559">559</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#597">597</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#606">606</a> to Open.</li>
<li>Moved issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#543">543</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#545">545</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#549">549</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#549">549</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#598">598</a> - <a href="lwg-defects.html#603">603</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#605">605</a> to Ready.</li>
<li>Moved issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#531">531</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#551">551</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#604">604</a> to Review.</li>
<li>Added new issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#593">593</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#594">594</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#595">595</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#596">596</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#597">597</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#598">598</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#599">599</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#600">600</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#601">601</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#602">602</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#603">603</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#604">604</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#605">605</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#606">606</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#607">607</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#608">608</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#609">609</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R44: 
2006-09-08 pre-Portland mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>130 open issues, up by 6.</li>
<li>462 closed issues, down by 1.</li>
<li>592 issues total, up by 5.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added new issues <a href="lwg-closed.html#583">583</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#584">584</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#585">585</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#586">586</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#587">587</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#588">588</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#589">589</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#590">590</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#591">591</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#592">592</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R43: 
2006-06-23 mid-term mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>124 open issues, up by 14.</li>
<li>463 closed issues, down by 1.</li>
<li>587 issues total, up by 13.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added new issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#575">575</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#576">576</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#577">577</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#578">578</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#579">579</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#580">580</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#581">581</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#582">582</a>.</li>
<li>Reopened <a href="lwg-closed.html#255">255</a>.</li>
<li>Moved issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#520">520</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#541">541</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#544">544</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#569">569</a> to Tentatively Ready.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R42: 
2006-04-21 post-Berlin mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>110 open issues, down by 16.</li>
<li>464 closed issues, up by 24.</li>
<li>574 issues total, up by 8.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added new issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#567">567</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#568">568</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#569">569</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#570">570</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#571">571</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#572">572</a>.</li>
<li>Moved issues <a href="lwg-closed.html#499">499</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#501">501</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#506">506</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#509">509</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#510">510</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#511">511</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#513">513</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#514">514</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#517">517</a> to NAD.</li>
<li>Moved issues <a href="lwg-closed.html#502">502</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#503">503</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#515">515</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#516">516</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#522">522</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#525">525</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#526">526</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#527">527</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#528">528</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#529">529</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#532">532</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#536">536</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#539">539</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#548">548</a> to Open.</li>
<li>Moved issue <a href="lwg-closed.html#504">504</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#512">512</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#521">521</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#530">530</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#531">531</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#535">535</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#537">537</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#538">538</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#540">540</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#549">549</a> to Ready.</li>
<li>Moved issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#247">247</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#294">294</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#362">362</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#369">369</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#371">371</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#376">376</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#384">384</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#475">475</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#478">478</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#495">495</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#497">497</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#505">505</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#507">507</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#508">508</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#519">519</a> to WP.</li>
<li>Moved issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#534">534</a> to Review.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R41: 
2006-02-24 pre-Berlin mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>126 open issues, up by 31.</li>
<li>440 closed issues, up by 0.</li>
<li>566 issues total, up by 31.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added new issues <a href="lwg-closed.html#536">536</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#537">537</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#538">538</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#539">539</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#540">540</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#541">541</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#542">542</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#543">543</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#544">544</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#545">545</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#546">546</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#547">547</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#548">548</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#549">549</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#550">550</a> ,<a href="lwg-defects.html#551">551</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#552">552</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#553">553</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#554">554</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#555">555</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#556">556</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#557">557</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#558">558</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#559">559</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#560">560</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#561">561</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#562">562</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#563">563</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#564">564</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#565">565</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#566">566</a>.</li>
<li>Moved <a href="lwg-closed.html#342">342</a> from Ready to Open.</li>
<li>Reopened <a href="lwg-closed.html#309">309</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R40: 
2005-12-16 mid-term mailing.
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>95 open issues.</li>
<li>440 closed issues.</li>
<li>535 issues total.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added new issues <a href="lwg-closed.html#529">529</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#530">530</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#531">531</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#532">532</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#533">533</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#534">534</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#535">535</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R39: 
2005-10-14 post-Mont Tremblant mailing.
Added new issues <a href="lwg-closed.html#526">526</a>-<a href="lwg-closed.html#528">528</a>.
Moved issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#280">280</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#461">461</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#464">464</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#465">465</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#467">467</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#468">468</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#474">474</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#496">496</a> from Ready to WP as per the vote from Mont Tremblant.
Moved issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#247">247</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#294">294</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#342">342</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#362">362</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#369">369</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#371">371</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#376">376</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#384">384</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#475">475</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#478">478</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#495">495</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#497">497</a> from Review to Ready.
Moved issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#498">498</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#504">504</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#506">506</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#509">509</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#510">510</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#511">511</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#512">512</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#513">513</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#514">514</a> from New to Open.
Moved issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#505">505</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#507">507</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#508">508</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#519">519</a> from New to Ready.
Moved issue <a href="lwg-closed.html#500">500</a> from New to NAD.
Moved issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#518">518</a> from New to Review.
</li>
<li>R38: 
2005-07-03 pre-Mont Tremblant mailing.
Merged open TR1 issues in <a href="lwg-closed.html#504">504</a>-<a href="lwg-defects.html#522">522</a>.
Added new issues <a href="lwg-closed.html#523">523</a>-<a href="lwg-closed.html#523">523</a>
</li>
<li>R37: 
2005-06 mid-term mailing.
Added new issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#498">498</a>-<a href="lwg-closed.html#503">503</a>.
</li>
<li>R36: 
2005-04 post-Lillehammer mailing. All issues in "ready" status except
for <a href="lwg-closed.html#454">454</a> were moved to "DR" status, and all issues
previously in "DR" status were moved to "WP".
</li>
<li>R35: 
2005-03 pre-Lillehammer mailing.
</li>
<li>R34: 
2005-01 mid-term mailing.  Added new issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#488">488</a>-<a href="lwg-closed.html#494">494</a>.
</li>
<li>R33: 
2004-11 post-Redmond mailing. Reflects actions taken in Redmond.
</li>
<li>R32: 
2004-09 pre-Redmond mailing: reflects new proposed resolutions and
new issues received after the 2004-07 mailing.  Added
new issues <a href="lwg-closed.html#479">479</a>-<a href="lwg-closed.html#481">481</a>.
</li>
<li>R31: 
2004-07 mid-term mailing: reflects new proposed resolutions and
new issues received after the post-Sydney mailing.  Added
new issues <a href="lwg-closed.html#463">463</a>-<a href="lwg-defects.html#478">478</a>.
</li>
<li>R30: 
Post-Sydney mailing: reflects decisions made at the Sydney meeting.
Voted all "Ready" issues from R29 into the working paper.
Added new issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#460">460</a>-<a href="lwg-closed.html#462">462</a>.
</li>
<li>R29: 
Pre-Sydney mailing.  Added new issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#441">441</a>-<a href="lwg-defects.html#457">457</a>.
</li>
<li>R28: 
Post-Kona mailing: reflects decisions made at the Kona meeting.
Added new issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#432">432</a>-<a href="lwg-closed.html#440">440</a>.
</li>
<li>R27: 
Pre-Kona mailing.  Added new issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#404">404</a>-<a href="lwg-defects.html#431">431</a>.
</li>
<li>R26: 
Post-Oxford mailing: reflects decisions made at the Oxford meeting.
All issues in Ready status were voted into DR status.  All issues in
DR status were voted into WP status.
</li>
<li>R25: 
Pre-Oxford mailing.  Added new issues <a href="lwg-closed.html#390">390</a>-<a href="lwg-defects.html#402">402</a>.
</li>
<li>R24: 
Post-Santa Cruz mailing: reflects decisions made at the Santa Cruz
meeting.  All Ready issues from R23 with the exception of <a href="lwg-defects.html#253">253</a>, 
which has been given a new proposed resolution, were
moved to DR status.  Added new issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#383">383</a>-<a href="lwg-defects.html#389">389</a>.  
(Issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#387">387</a>-<a href="lwg-defects.html#389">389</a> were discussed
at the meeting.)  Made progress on issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#225">225</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#226">226</a>, 
<a href="lwg-defects.html#229">229</a>: <a href="lwg-defects.html#225">225</a> and <a href="lwg-defects.html#229">229</a> have been moved to 
Ready status, and the only remaining concerns with <a href="lwg-defects.html#226">226</a> involve wording.
</li>
<li>R23: 
Pre-Santa Cruz mailing.  Added new issues <a href="lwg-closed.html#367">367</a>-<a href="lwg-closed.html#382">382</a>.
Moved issues in the TC to TC status.
</li>
<li>R22: 
Post-Cura&ccedil;ao mailing.  Added new issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#362">362</a>-<a href="lwg-closed.html#366">366</a>.
</li>
<li>R21: 
Pre-Cura&ccedil;ao mailing.  Added new issues <a href="lwg-closed.html#351">351</a>-<a href="lwg-closed.html#361">361</a>.
</li>
<li>R20: 
Post-Redmond mailing; reflects actions taken in Redmond.  Added
new issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#336">336</a>-<a href="lwg-closed.html#350">350</a>, of which issues 
<a href="lwg-defects.html#347">347</a>-<a href="lwg-closed.html#350">350</a> were added since Redmond, hence
not discussed at the meeting.  

All Ready issues were moved to DR status, with the exception of issues
<a href="lwg-defects.html#284">284</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#241">241</a>, and <a href="lwg-closed.html#267">267</a>.

Noteworthy issues discussed at Redmond include 
<a href="lwg-defects.html#120">120</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#202">202</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#226">226</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#233">233</a>, 
<a href="lwg-defects.html#270">270</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#253">253</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#254">254</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#323">323</a>.
</li>
<li>R19: 
Pre-Redmond mailing.  Added new issues 
<a href="lwg-closed.html#323">323</a>-<a href="lwg-defects.html#335">335</a>.
</li>
<li>R18: 
Post-Copenhagen mailing; reflects actions taken in Copenhagen.
Added new issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#312">312</a>-<a href="lwg-defects.html#317">317</a>, and discussed
new issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#271">271</a>-<a href="lwg-closed.html#314">314</a>.

Changed status of issues
<a href="lwg-defects.html#103">103</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#118">118</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#136">136</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#153">153</a>
<a href="lwg-defects.html#165">165</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#171">171</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#183">183</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#184">184</a>
<a href="lwg-defects.html#185">185</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#186">186</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#214">214</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#221">221</a>
<a href="lwg-defects.html#234">234</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#237">237</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#243">243</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#248">248</a>
<a href="lwg-defects.html#251">251</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#252">252</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#256">256</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#260">260</a>
<a href="lwg-defects.html#261">261</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#262">262</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#263">263</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#265">265</a>
<a href="lwg-defects.html#268">268</a>
to DR.

Changed status of issues
<a href="lwg-defects.html#49">49</a>  <a href="lwg-defects.html#109">109</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#117">117</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#182">182</a>
<a href="lwg-defects.html#228">228</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#230">230</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#232">232</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#235">235</a>
<a href="lwg-defects.html#238">238</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#241">241</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#242">242</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#250">250</a>
<a href="lwg-defects.html#259">259</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#264">264</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#266">266</a> <a href="lwg-closed.html#267">267</a>
<a href="lwg-defects.html#271">271</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#272">272</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#273">273</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#275">275</a>
<a href="lwg-defects.html#281">281</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#284">284</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#285">285</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#286">286</a>
<a href="lwg-defects.html#288">288</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#292">292</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#295">295</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#297">297</a>
<a href="lwg-defects.html#298">298</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#301">301</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#303">303</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#306">306</a>
<a href="lwg-defects.html#307">307</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#308">308</a> <a href="lwg-defects.html#312">312</a>
to Ready.

Closed issues 
<a href="lwg-closed.html#111">111</a> <a href="lwg-closed.html#277">277</a> <a href="lwg-closed.html#279">279</a> <a href="lwg-closed.html#287">287</a>
<a href="lwg-closed.html#289">289</a> <a href="lwg-closed.html#293">293</a> <a href="lwg-closed.html#302">302</a> <a href="lwg-closed.html#313">313</a>
<a href="lwg-closed.html#314">314</a>
as NAD.

</li>
<li>R17: 
Pre-Copenhagen mailing.  Converted issues list to XML.  Added proposed
resolutions for issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#49">49</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#76">76</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#91">91</a>, 
<a href="lwg-defects.html#235">235</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#250">250</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#267">267</a>.
Added new issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#278">278</a>-<a href="lwg-defects.html#311">311</a>.
</li>
<li>R16:  
post-Toronto mailing; reflects actions taken in Toronto. Added new
issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#265">265</a>-<a href="lwg-closed.html#277">277</a>.  Changed status of issues
<a href="lwg-defects.html#3">3</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#8">8</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#9">9</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#19">19</a>,
<a href="lwg-defects.html#26">26</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#31">31</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#61">61</a>,
<a href="lwg-defects.html#63">63</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#86">86</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#108">108</a>,
<a href="lwg-defects.html#112">112</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#114">114</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#115">115</a>,
<a href="lwg-defects.html#122">122</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#127">127</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#129">129</a>,
<a href="lwg-defects.html#134">134</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#137">137</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#142">142</a>,
<a href="lwg-defects.html#144">144</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#146">146</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#147">147</a>,
<a href="lwg-defects.html#159">159</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#164">164</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#170">170</a>,
<a href="lwg-defects.html#181">181</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#199">199</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#208">208</a>,
<a href="lwg-defects.html#209">209</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#210">210</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#211">211</a>,
<a href="lwg-defects.html#212">212</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#217">217</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#220">220</a>,
<a href="lwg-defects.html#222">222</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#223">223</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#224">224</a>,
<a href="lwg-defects.html#227">227</a> to "DR".  Reopened issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#23">23</a>. Reopened
issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#187">187</a>. Changed issues <a href="lwg-closed.html#2">2</a> and
<a href="lwg-closed.html#4">4</a> to NAD. Fixed a typo in issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#17">17</a>. Fixed
issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#70">70</a>: signature should be changed both places it
appears. Fixed issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#160">160</a>: previous version didn't fix
the bug in enough places.
</li>
<li>R15: 
pre-Toronto mailing. Added issues
<a href="lwg-defects.html#233">233</a>-<a href="lwg-defects.html#264">264</a>. Some small HTML formatting
changes so that we pass Weblint tests.
</li>
<li>R14: 
post-Tokyo II mailing; reflects committee actions taken in
Tokyo. Added issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#228">228</a> to <a href="lwg-defects.html#232">232</a>. (00-0019R1/N1242)
</li>
<li>R13: 
pre-Tokyo II updated: Added issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#212">212</a> to <a href="lwg-defects.html#227">227</a>.
</li>
<li>R12: 
pre-Tokyo II mailing: Added issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#199">199</a> to
<a href="lwg-defects.html#211">211</a>. Added "and paragraph 5" to the proposed resolution
of issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#29">29</a>.  Add further rationale to issue
<a href="lwg-closed.html#178">178</a>.
</li>
<li>R11: 
post-Kona mailing: Updated to reflect LWG and full committee actions
in Kona (99-0048/N1224). Note changed resolution of issues
<a href="lwg-closed.html#4">4</a> and <a href="lwg-defects.html#38">38</a>. Added issues <a href="lwg-closed.html#196">196</a>
to <a href="lwg-defects.html#198">198</a>. Closed issues list split into "defects" and
"closed" documents.  Changed the proposed resolution of issue
<a href="lwg-closed.html#4">4</a> to NAD, and changed the wording of proposed resolution
of issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#38">38</a>.
</li>
<li>R10: 
pre-Kona updated.  Added proposed resolutions <a href="lwg-defects.html#83">83</a>,
<a href="lwg-defects.html#86">86</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#91">91</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#92">92</a>,
<a href="lwg-defects.html#109">109</a>. Added issues <a href="lwg-closed.html#190">190</a> to
<a href="lwg-defects.html#195">195</a>. (99-0033/D1209, 14 Oct 99)
</li>
<li>R9: 
pre-Kona mailing.  Added issues <a href="lwg-closed.html#140">140</a> to
<a href="lwg-defects.html#189">189</a>. Issues list split into separate "active" and
"closed" documents. (99-0030/N1206, 25 Aug 99)
</li>
<li>R8: 
post-Dublin mailing. Updated to reflect LWG and full committee actions
in Dublin. (99-0016/N1193, 21 Apr 99)
</li>
<li>R7: 
pre-Dublin updated: Added issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#130">130</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#131">131</a>,
<a href="lwg-defects.html#132">132</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#133">133</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#134">134</a>,
<a href="lwg-closed.html#135">135</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#136">136</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#137">137</a>,
<a href="lwg-closed.html#138">138</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#139">139</a> (31 Mar 99)
</li>
<li>R6: 
pre-Dublin mailing. Added issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#127">127</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#128">128</a>,
and <a href="lwg-defects.html#129">129</a>.  (99-0007/N1194, 22 Feb 99)
</li>
<li>R5: 
update issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#103">103</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#112">112</a>; added issues
<a href="lwg-defects.html#114">114</a> to <a href="lwg-defects.html#126">126</a>. Format revisions to prepare
for making list public. (30 Dec 98)
</li>
<li>R4: 
post-Santa Cruz II updated: Issues <a href="lwg-defects.html#110">110</a>,
<a href="lwg-closed.html#111">111</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#112">112</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#113">113</a> added, several
issues corrected. (22 Oct 98)
</li>
<li>R3: 
post-Santa Cruz II: Issues <a href="lwg-closed.html#94">94</a> to <a href="lwg-defects.html#109">109</a>
added, many issues updated to reflect LWG consensus (12 Oct 98)
</li>
<li>R2: 
pre-Santa Cruz II: Issues <a href="lwg-closed.html#73">73</a> to <a href="lwg-closed.html#93">93</a> added,
issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#17">17</a> updated. (29 Sep 98)
</li>
<li>R1: 
Correction to issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#55">55</a> resolution, <a href="lwg-defects.html#60">60</a> code
format, <a href="lwg-defects.html#64">64</a> title. (17 Sep 98)
</li>
</ul>

<h2><a name="Status"></a>Issue Status</h2>

  <p><b><a name="New">New</a></b> - The issue has not yet been
  reviewed by the LWG. Any <b>Proposed Resolution</b> is purely a
  suggestion from the issue submitter, and should not be construed as
  the view of LWG.</p>

  <p><b><a name="Open">Open</a></b> - The LWG has discussed the issue
  but is not yet ready to move the issue forward. There are several
  possible reasons for open status:</p>
     <ul>
        <li>Consensus may have not yet have been reached as to how to deal
            with the issue.</li>
        <li>Informal consensus may have been reached, but the LWG awaits
            exact <b>Proposed Resolution</b> wording for review.</li>
        <li>The LWG wishes to consult additional technical experts before
            proceeding.</li>
        <li>The issue may require further study.</li>
     </ul>

  <p>A <b>Proposed Resolution</b> for an open issue is still not be
  construed as the view of LWG. Comments on the current state of
  discussions are often given at the end of open issues in an italic
  font. Such comments are for information only and should not be given
  undue importance.</p>

  <p><b><a name="Deferred">Deferred</a></b> - The LWG has discussed the issue,
  is not yet ready to move the issue forward, but neither does it deem the
  issue significant enough to delay publishing a standard or Technical Report.
  A typical deferred issue would be seeking to clarify wording that might be
  technically correct, but easily mis-read.</p>

  <p>A <b>Proposed Resolution</b> for a deferred issue is still not be
  construed as the view of LWG. Comments on the current state of
  discussions are often given at the end of open issues in an italic
  font. Such comments are for information only and should not be given
  undue importance.</p>

  <p><b><a name="Dup">Dup</a></b> - The LWG has reached consensus that
  the issue is a duplicate of another issue, and will not be further
  dealt with. A <b>Rationale</b> identifies the duplicated issue's
  issue number.  </p>

  <p><b><a name="NAD">NAD</a></b> - The LWG has reached consensus that
  the issue is not a defect in the Standard.</p>

  <p><b><a name="NAD Editorial">NAD Editorial</a></b> - The LWG has reached consensus that
  the issue can either be handled editorially, or is handled by a paper (usually
  linked to in the rationale).</p>

  <p><b><a name="NAD Concepts">NAD Concepts</a></b> - The LWG has reached consensus that
  the issue is NAD for now, but represents a real issue when the library is
  done with language-supported concepts.</p>

  <p><b><a name="NAD Future">NAD Future</a></b> - In addition to the regular
  status, the LWG believes that this issue should be revisited at the
  next revision of the standard.</p>

  <p><b><a name="Review">Review</a></b> - Exact wording of a
  <b>Proposed Resolution</b> is now available for review on an issue
  for which the LWG previously reached informal consensus.</p>

  <p><b><a name="Ready">Ready</a></b> - The LWG has reached consensus
  that the issue is a defect in the Standard, the <b>Proposed
  Resolution</b> is correct, and the issue is ready to forward to the
  full committee for further action as a Defect Report (DR).</p>

  <p><b><a name="Resolved">Resolved</a></b> - The LWG has reached consensus
  that the issue is a defect in the Standard, but the resolution adopted to
  resolve the issue came via some other mechanism than this issue in the
  list - typically by applying a formal paper, occasionally as a side effect
  of consolidating several interacting issue resolutions into a single issue.</p>

  <p><b><a name="DR">DR</a></b> - (Defect Report) - The full WG21/PL22.16
  committee has voted to forward the issue to the Project Editor to be
  processed as a Potential Defect Report. The Project Editor reviews
  the issue, and then forwards it to the WG21 Convenor, who returns it
  to the full committee for final disposition. This issues list
  accords the status of DR to all these Defect Reports regardless of
  where they are in that process.</p>

  <p><b><a name="TC1">TC1</a></b> - (Technical Corrigenda 1) - The full
  WG21/PL22.16 committee has voted to accept the Defect Report's Proposed
  Resolution as a Technical Corrigenda.  Action on this issue is thus
  complete and no further action is possible under ISO rules.</p>

  <p><b><a name="CD1">CD1</a></b> - (Committee Draft 2008) - The full
  WG21/PL22.16 committee has voted to accept the Defect Report's Proposed
  Resolution into the Fall 2008 Committee Draft.</p>

  <p><b><a name="TRDec">TRDec</a></b> - (Decimal TR defect) - The 
  LWG has voted to accept the Defect Report's Proposed
  Resolution into the Decimal TR.  Action on this issue is thus
  complete and no further action is expected.</p>

  <p><b><a name="WP">WP</a></b> - (Working Paper) - The proposed
  resolution has not been accepted as a Technical Corrigendum, but
  the full WG21/PL22.16 committee has voted to apply the Defect Report's Proposed
  Resolution to the working paper.</p>

  <p><b>Tentatively</b> - This is a <i>status qualifier</i>.  The issue has
  been reviewed online, or at an unofficial meeting, but not in an official meeting, and some support has been formed
  for the qualified status.  Tentatively qualified issues may be moved to the unqualified status
  and forwarded to full committee (if Ready) within the same meeting.  Unlike Ready issues, Tentatively Ready issues
  will be reviewed in subcommittee prior to forwarding to full committee.  When a status is
  qualified with Tentatively, the issue is still considered active.</p>

  <p><b>Pending</b> - This is a <i>status qualifier</i>.  When prepended to
  a status this indicates the issue has been
  processed by the committee, and a decision has been made to move the issue to
  the associated unqualified status.  However for logistical reasons the indicated
  outcome of the issue has not yet appeared in the latest working paper.

  <p>Issues are always given the status of <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a> when
  they first appear on the issues list. They may progress to
  <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a> or <a href="lwg-active.html#Review">Review</a> while the LWG
  is actively working on them. When the LWG has reached consensus on
  the disposition of an issue, the status will then change to
  <a href="lwg-active.html#Dup">Dup</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#NAD">NAD</a>, or
  <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a> as appropriate.  Once the full J16 committee votes to
  forward Ready issues to the Project Editor, they are given the
  status of Defect Report ( <a href="lwg-active.html#DR">DR</a>). These in turn may
  become the basis for Technical Corrigenda (<a href="lwg-active.html#TC1">TC1</a>),
  or are closed without action other than a Record of Response
  (<a href="lwg-active.html#Resolved">Resolved</a> ). The intent of this LWG process is that
  only issues which are truly defects in the Standard move to the
  formal ISO DR status.
  </p>


<h2>Active Issues</h2>
<hr>
<h3><a name="1169"></a>1169. <tt>num_get</tt> not fully compatible with <tt>strto*</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 22.4.2.1.2 [facet.num.get.virtuals] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Review">Review</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Cosmin Truta <b>Opened:</b> 2009-07-04 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#facet.num.get.virtuals">issues</a> in [facet.num.get.virtuals].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Review">Review</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
As specified in the latest draft,
<a 
href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2009/n2914.pdf">N2914</a>,
<code>num_get</code> is still not fully compatible with the following C
functions: <code>strtoul</code>, <code>strtoull</code>, 
<code>strtof</code> and
<code>strtod</code>.
</p>
<p>
In C, when conversion of a string to an unsigned integer type falls 
outside the
representable range, <code>strtoul</code> and <code>strtoull</code> return
<code>ULONG_MAX</code> and <code>ULLONG_MAX</code>, respectively, 
regardless
whether the input field represents a positive or a negative value.
On the other hand, the result of <code>num_get</code> conversion of 
negative
values to unsigned integer types is zero. This raises a compatibility 
issue.
</p>
<p>
Moreover, in C, when conversion of a string to a floating-point type falls
outside the representable range, <code>strtof</code>, <code>strtod</code> 
and
<code>strtold</code> return <code>&#xB1HUGE_VALF</code>,
<code>&#xB1HUGE_VAL</code> and <code>&#xB1HUGE_VALL</code>, respectively.
On the other hand, the result of <code>num_get</code> conversion of such
out-of-range floating-point values results in the most positive/negative
representable value.
Although many C library implementations do implement <code>HUGE_VAL</code>
(etc.) as the highest representable (which is, usually, the infinity), 
this isn't required by the C standard. The C library specification makes no
statement regarding the value of <code>HUGE_VAL</code> and friends, which
potentially raises the same compatibility issue as in the above case of
unsigned integers.
In addition, neither C nor C++ define symbolic constants for the maximum
representable floating-point values (they only do so only for the maximum
representable <i>finite</i> floating-point values), which raises a 
usability
issue (it would be hard for the programmer to check the result of
<code>num_get</code> against overflow).
</p>
<p>
As such, we propose to adjust the specification of <code>num_get</code> to
closely follow the behavior of all of its underlying C functions.
</p>



<p><i>[
2010 Rapperswil:
]</i></p>


<blockquote><p>
Some concern that this is changing the specification for an existing C++03 function, but it was 
pointed out that this was underspecified as resolved by issue 23.  This is clean-up for that 
issue in turn. Some concern that we are trying to solve the same problem in both clause 22 and 27.
</p>
<p>
Bill: There's a change here as to whether val is stored to in an error case.
</p>
<p>
Pablo: Don't think this changes whether val is stored to or not, but changes the value that is stored.
</p>
<p>
Bill: Remembers having skirmishes with customers and testers as to whether val is stored to, and the resolution was not to store in error cases.
</p>
<p>
Howard: Believes since C++03 we made a change to always store in overflow.
</p>
<p>
Everyone took some time to review the issue.
</p>
<p>
Pablo: C++98 definitely did not store any value during an error condition.
</p>
<p>
Dietmar: Depends on the question of what is considered an error, and whether overflow is an error or not, which was the crux of LWG 23.
</p>
<p>
Pablo: Yes, but given the "zero, if the conversion function fails to convert the entire field", we are requiring every error condition to store.
</p>
<p>
Bill: When did this happen?
</p>
<p>
Alisdair: One of the last two or three meetings.
</p>
<p>
Dietmar: To store a value in case of failure is a very bad idea.
</p>
<p>
Move to Open, needs more study.
</p>
</blockquote>

<p><i>[2011-03-24 Madrid meeting]</i></p>


<p>Move to deferred</p>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington
]</i></p>


<p>
The proposed wording looks good, no-one sure why this was held back before.  Move to Review.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>

<p>
Change 22.4.2.1.2 [facet.num.get.virtuals] as follows:
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
<b>Stage 3:</b>
The sequence of <code>char</code>s accumulated in stage 2 (the field) is
converted to a numeric value by the rules of one of the functions declared in
the header <code>&lt;cstdlib&gt;</code>:
</p>
<ul>
<li>For a signed integer value, the function <code>strtoll</code>.</li>
<li>For an unsigned integer value, the function <code>strtoull</code>.</li>
<li><ins>For a <code>float</code> value, the function
    <code>strtof</code>.</ins></li>
<li><ins>For a <code>double</code> value, the function
    <code>strtod</code>.</ins></li>
<li>For a <del>floating-point</del> <ins><code>long double</code></ins>
    value, the function <code>strtold</code>.</li>
</ul>
<p>
The numeric value to be stored can be one of:
</p>
<ul>
<li>zero, if the conversion function fails to convert the entire field.
    <del><code>ios_base::failbit</code> is assigned to <code>err</code>.</del></li>
<li>the most positive <ins>(or negative)</ins> representable value, if
    the field <ins>to be converted to a signed integer type</ins> represents a
    value too large positive <ins>(or negative)</ins> to be represented in
    <code>val</code>.
    <del><code>ios_base::failbit</code> is assigned to <code>err</code>.</del></li>
<li><del>the most negative representable value or zero for an unsigned integer
    type, if the field represents a value too large negative to be represented
    in <code>val</code>.
    <code>ios_base::failbit</code> is assigned to <code>err</code>.</del></li>
<li><ins>the most positive representable value, if the field to be converted to
    an unsigned integer type represents a value that cannot be represented in
    <code>val</code>.</ins></li>
<li>the converted value, otherwise.</li>
</ul>
<p>
The resultant numeric value is stored in <code>val</code>.
<ins>If the conversion function fails to convert the entire field, or if the
field represents a value outside the range of representable values,
<code>ios_base::failbit</code> is assigned to <code>err</code>.</ins>
</p>
</blockquote>






<hr>
<h3><a name="1175"></a>1175. <tt>unordered</tt> complexity</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.2.5 [unord.req] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Review">Review</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Pablo Halpern <b>Opened:</b> 2009-07-17 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#unord.req">issues</a> in [unord.req].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Review">Review</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
When I look at the <tt>unordered_*</tt> constructors, I think the complexity is poorly
described and does not follow the style of the rest of the standard.
</p>

<p>
The complexity for the default constructor is specified as constant.
Actually, it is proportional to <tt>n</tt>, but there are no invocations of
<tt>value_type</tt> constructors or other <tt>value_type</tt> operations.
</p>

<p>
For the iterator-based constructor the complexity should be:
</p>

<blockquote><p>
<i>Complexity:</i> exactly <tt>n</tt> calls to construct <tt>value_type</tt>
from <tt>InputIterator::value_type</tt> (where <tt>n = distance(f,l)</tt>).
The number of calls to <tt>key_equal::operator()</tt> is proportional to
<tt>n</tt> in the average case and <tt>n*n</tt> in the worst case.
</p></blockquote>



<p><i>[
2010 Rapperswil:
]</i></p>


<blockquote><p>
Concern that the current wording may require O(1) where that cannot be delivered.  We need to look at 
both the clause 23 requirements tables and the constructor description of each unordered container to be sure.
</p>
<p>
Howard suggests NAD Editorial as we updated the container requirement tables since this issue was written.
</p>
<p>
Daniel offers to look deeper, and hopefully produce wording addressing any outstanding concerns at the next meeting.
</p>
<p>
Move to Open.
</p>
</blockquote>

<p><i>[2011-02-26: Daniel provides wording]</i></p>


<p>I strongly suggest to clean-up the differences between requirement tables and individual
specifications. In the usual way, the most specific specifications wins, which is in this
case the wrong one. In regard to the concern expressed about missing <tt>DefaultConstructible</tt>
requirements of the value type I disagree: The function argument <tt>n</tt> is no size-control
parameter, but only some effective capacity parameter: No elements will be value-initialized
by these constructors. The necessary requirement for the value type, <tt>EmplaceConstructible</tt>
into <tt>*this</tt>, is already listed in Table 103 &mdash; Unordered associative container requirements.
Another part of the proposed resolution is the fact that there is an inconsistency of the
complexity counting when both a range <strong>and</strong> a bucket count is involved compared
to constructions where only bucket counts are provided: E.g. the construction <tt>X a(n);</tt>
has a complexity of <tt>n</tt> bucket allocations, but this part of the work is omitted for
<tt>X a(i, j, n);</tt>, even though it is considerable larger (in the average case) for 
<tt>n &#8811; distance(i, j)</tt>.
</p>

<p><i>[2011-03-24 Madrid meeting]</i></p>


<p>Move to deferred</p>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington
]</i></p>


<p>
The proposed wording looks good.  Move to Review.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<ol>
<li><p>Modify the following rows in Table 103 &mdash; Unordered associative container requirements to
add the explicit bucket allocation overhead of some constructions. As editorial recommendation it is 
suggested <em>not</em> to shorten the sum <tt>&#x1d4aa;(n) + &#x1d4aa;(<em>N</em>)</tt> to
<tt>&#x1d4aa;(n + <em>N</em>)</tt>, because two different work units are involved.</p>

<blockquote>
<table border="1">
<caption>Table 103 &mdash; Unordered associative container requirements (in addition to container)</caption>

<tr>
<th>Expression</th>
<th>Return type</th>
<th>Assertion&#47;note pre-&#47;post-condition</th>
<th>Complexity</th>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" style="text-align:center;">&hellip;</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>X(i, j, n, hf, eq)</tt><br/>
<tt>X a(i, j, n, hf, eq)</tt>
</td>
<td><tt>X</tt></td>
<td>&hellip;<br/>
<i>Effects</i>: Constructs an empty container with at least <tt>n</tt><br/>
buckets, using <tt>hf</tt> as the hash function and <tt>eq</tt> as the key<br/>
equality predicate, and inserts elements from <tt>[i, j)</tt> into it.
</td>
<td>Average case <ins>&#x1d4aa;(<tt>n</tt>) +</ins> &#x1d4aa;(<tt><i>N</i></tt>) (<tt><i>N</i></tt> is <tt>distance(i, j)</tt>),<br/>
worst case <ins>&#x1d4aa;(<tt>n</tt>) +</ins> &#x1d4aa;(<tt><i>N</i><sup>2</sup></tt>)</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>X(i, j, n, hf)</tt><br/>
<tt>X a(i, j, n, hf)</tt>
</td>
<td><tt>X</tt></td>
<td>&hellip;<br/>
<i>Effects</i>: Constructs an empty container with at least <tt>n</tt><br/>
buckets, using <tt>hf</tt> as the hash function and <tt>key_equal()</tt> as the key<br/>
equality predicate, and inserts elements from <tt>[i, j)</tt> into it.
</td>
<td>Average case <ins>&#x1d4aa;(<tt>n</tt>) +</ins> &#x1d4aa;(<tt><i>N</i></tt>) (<tt><i>N</i></tt> is <tt>distance(i, j)</tt>),<br/>
worst case <ins>&#x1d4aa;(<tt>n</tt>) +</ins> &#x1d4aa;(<tt><i>N</i><sup>2</sup></tt>)</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>X(i, j, n)</tt><br/>
<tt>X a(i, j, n)</tt>
</td>
<td><tt>X</tt></td>
<td>&hellip;<br/>
<i>Effects</i>: Constructs an empty container with at least <tt>n</tt><br/>
buckets, using <tt>hasher()</tt> as the hash function and <tt>key_equal()</tt> as the key<br/>
equality predicate, and inserts elements from <tt>[i, j)</tt> into it.
</td>
<td>Average case <ins>&#x1d4aa;(<tt>n</tt>) +</ins> &#x1d4aa;(<tt><i>N</i></tt>) (<tt><i>N</i></tt> is <tt>distance(i, j)</tt>),<br/>
worst case <ins>&#x1d4aa;(<tt>n</tt>) +</ins> &#x1d4aa;(<tt><i>N</i><sup>2</sup></tt>)</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" style="text-align:center;">&hellip;</td>
</tr>

</table>
</blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Modify 23.5.4.2 [unord.map.cnstr] p. 1-4 as indicated (The edits of p. 1 and p. 3 attempt to fix some
editorial oversight.):</p>

<blockquote><pre>
explicit unordered_map(size_type n = <i>see below</i>,
                       const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
                       const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
                       const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());
</pre><blockquote><p>
1 <i>Effects</i>: Constructs an empty <tt>unordered_map</tt> using the specified hash function, key equality function,
and allocator, and using at least <tt>n</tt> buckets. If <tt>n</tt> is not provided, the number of buckets is 
<ins>implementation-defined</ins><del>impldefdefault number of buckets in <tt>unordered_map</tt></del>. 
<tt>max_load_factor()</tt> returns <tt>1.0</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>
2 <i>Complexity</i>: Constant <ins>if <tt>n</tt> is not provided, otherwise linear in <tt>n</tt> to construct the buckets</ins>.
</p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class InputIterator&gt;
unordered_map(InputIterator f, InputIterator l,
              size_type n = <i>see below</i>,
              const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
              const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
              const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());
</pre><blockquote><p>
3 <i>Effects</i>: Constructs an empty <tt>unordered_map</tt> using the specified hash function, key equality function,
and allocator, and using at least <tt>n</tt> buckets. If <tt>n</tt> is not provided, the number of buckets is 
<ins>implementation-defined</ins><del>impldefdefault number of buckets in <tt>unordered_map</tt></del>.
Then inserts elements from the range <tt>[f, l)</tt>. <tt>max_load_factor()</tt> returns <tt>1.0</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>
4 <i>Complexity</i>: <del>Average case linear, worst case quadratic</del><ins>Constant if <tt>n</tt> is not 
provided, else linear in <tt>n</tt> to construct the buckets. In the average case linear in <tt><i>N</i></tt> 
and in the worst case quadratic in <tt><i>N</i></tt> to insert the elements, where <tt><i>N</i></tt> is equal to 
<tt>distance(f, l)</tt></ins>.
</p></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Modify 23.5.5.2 [unord.multimap.cnstr] p. 1-4 as indicated (The edits of p. 1 and p. 3 attempt to fix some
editorial oversight.):</p>

<blockquote><pre>
explicit unordered_multimap(size_type n = <i>see below</i>,
                            const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
                            const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
                            const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());
</pre><blockquote><p>
1 <i>Effects</i>: Constructs an empty <tt>unordered_multimap</tt> using the specified hash function, key equality function,
and allocator, and using at least <tt>n</tt> buckets. If <tt>n</tt> is not provided, the number of buckets is 
<ins>implementation-defined</ins><del>impldefdefault number of buckets in <tt>unordered_multimap</tt></del>. 
<tt>max_load_factor()</tt> returns <tt>1.0</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>
2 <i>Complexity</i>: Constant <ins>if <tt>n</tt> is not provided, otherwise linear in <tt>n</tt> to construct the buckets</ins>.
</p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class InputIterator&gt;
unordered_multimap(InputIterator f, InputIterator l,
                   size_type n = <i>see below</i>,
                   const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
                   const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
                   const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());
</pre><blockquote><p>
3 <i>Effects</i>: Constructs an empty <tt>unordered_multimap</tt> using the specified hash function, key equality function,
and allocator, and using at least <tt>n</tt> buckets. If <tt>n</tt> is not provided, the number of buckets is 
<ins>implementation-defined</ins><del>impldefdefault number of buckets in <tt>unordered_multimap</tt></del>.
Then inserts elements from the range <tt>[f, l)</tt>. <tt>max_load_factor()</tt> returns <tt>1.0</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>
4 <i>Complexity</i>: <del>Average case linear, worst case quadratic</del><ins>Constant if <tt>n</tt> is not 
provided, else linear in <tt>n</tt> to construct the buckets. In the average case linear in <tt><i>N</i></tt> 
and in the worst case quadratic in <tt><i>N</i></tt> to insert the elements, where <tt><i>N</i></tt> is equal to 
<tt>distance(f, l)</tt></ins>.
</p></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Modify 23.5.6.2 [unord.set.cnstr] p. 1-4 as indicated (The edits of p. 1 and p. 3 attempt to fix some
editorial oversight.):</p>

<blockquote><pre>
explicit unordered_set(size_type n = <i>see below</i>,
                       const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
                       const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
                       const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());
</pre><blockquote><p>
1 <i>Effects</i>: Constructs an empty <tt>unordered_set</tt> using the specified hash function, key equality function,
and allocator, and using at least <tt>n</tt> buckets. If <tt>n</tt> is not provided, the number of buckets is 
<ins>implementation-defined</ins><del>impldefdefault number of buckets in <tt>unordered_set</tt></del>. 
<tt>max_load_factor()</tt> returns <tt>1.0</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>
2 <i>Complexity</i>: Constant <ins>if <tt>n</tt> is not provided, otherwise linear in <tt>n</tt> to construct the buckets</ins>.
</p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class InputIterator&gt;
unordered_set(InputIterator f, InputIterator l,
              size_type n = <i>see below</i>,
              const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
              const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
              const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());
</pre><blockquote><p>
3 <i>Effects</i>: Constructs an empty <tt>unordered_set</tt> using the specified hash function, key equality function,
and allocator, and using at least <tt>n</tt> buckets. If <tt>n</tt> is not provided, the number of buckets is 
<ins>implementation-defined</ins><del>impldefdefault number of buckets in <tt>unordered_set</tt></del>.
Then inserts elements from the range <tt>[f, l)</tt>. <tt>max_load_factor()</tt> returns <tt>1.0</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>
4 <i>Complexity</i>: <del>Average case linear, worst case quadratic</del><ins>Constant if <tt>n</tt> is not 
provided, else linear in <tt>n</tt> to construct the buckets. In the average case linear in <tt><i>N</i></tt> 
and in the worst case quadratic in <tt><i>N</i></tt> to insert the elements, where <tt><i>N</i></tt> is equal to 
<tt>distance(f, l)</tt></ins>.
</p></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Modify 23.5.7.2 [unord.multiset.cnstr] p. 1-4 as indicated (The edits of p. 1 and p. 3 attempt to fix some
editorial oversight.):</p>

<blockquote><pre>
explicit unordered_multiset(size_type n = <i>see below</i>,
                            const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
                            const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
                            const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());
</pre><blockquote><p>
1 <i>Effects</i>: Constructs an empty <tt>unordered_multiset</tt> using the specified hash function, key equality function,
and allocator, and using at least <tt>n</tt> buckets. If <tt>n</tt> is not provided, the number of buckets is 
<ins>implementation-defined</ins><del>impldefdefault number of buckets in <tt>unordered_multiset</tt></del>. 
<tt>max_load_factor()</tt> returns <tt>1.0</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>
2 <i>Complexity</i>: Constant <ins>if <tt>n</tt> is not provided, otherwise linear in <tt>n</tt> to construct the buckets</ins>.
</p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class InputIterator&gt;
unordered_multiset(InputIterator f, InputIterator l,
                   size_type n = <i>see below</i>,
                   const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
                   const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
                   const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());
</pre><blockquote><p>
3 <i>Effects</i>: Constructs an empty <tt>unordered_multiset</tt> using the specified hash function, key equality function,
and allocator, and using at least <tt>n</tt> buckets. If <tt>n</tt> is not provided, the number of buckets is 
<ins>implementation-defined</ins><del>impldefdefault number of buckets in <tt>unordered_multiset</tt></del>.
Then inserts elements from the range <tt>[f, l)</tt>. <tt>max_load_factor()</tt> returns <tt>1.0</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>
4 <i>Complexity</i>: <del>Average case linear, worst case quadratic</del><ins>Constant if <tt>n</tt> is not 
provided, else linear in <tt>n</tt> to construct the buckets. In the average case linear in <tt><i>N</i></tt> 
and in the worst case quadratic in <tt><i>N</i></tt> to insert the elements, where <tt><i>N</i></tt> is equal to 
<tt>distance(f, l)</tt></ins>.
</p></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</li>

</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="1213"></a>1213. Meaning of valid and singular iterator underspecified</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 24.2 [iterator.requirements] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Deferred">Deferred</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2009-09-19 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#iterator.requirements">active issues</a> in [iterator.requirements].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#iterator.requirements">issues</a> in [iterator.requirements].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Deferred">Deferred</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
The terms <em>valid</em> iterator and <em>singular</em> aren't
properly defined. The fuzziness of those terms became even worse
after the resolution of <a href="lwg-defects.html#208">208</a> (including further updates by <a href="lwg-defects.html#278">278</a>). In
24.2 [iterator.requirements] as of
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2723.pdf">N2723</a>
the standard says now:
</p>

<blockquote>
<p>
5 - These values are called past-the-end values. Values of an iterator <tt>i</tt> for
which the expression <tt>*i</tt> is defined are called dereferenceable. The library
never assumes that past-the-end values are dereferenceable. Iterators
can also have singular values that are not associated with any
container. [...] Results of most expressions are undefined for singular
values; the only exceptions are destroying an iterator that holds a
singular value and the assignment of a non-singular value to an iterator
that holds a singular value. [...] Dereferenceable values are always
non-singular.
</p>

<p>
10 - An invalid iterator is an iterator that may be singular.
</p>
</blockquote>

<p>
First, issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#208">208</a> intentionally removed the earlier constraint that past-the-end
values are always non-singular. The reason for this was to support null
pointers as past-the-end iterators of e.g. empty sequences. But there
seem to exist different views on what a singular (iterator) value is. E.g.
according to the <a href="http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/trivial.html">SGI definition</a>
a null pointer is <em>not</em> a singular value:
</p>

<blockquote><p>
Dereferenceable iterators are always nonsingular, but the converse is
not true.
For example, a null pointer is nonsingular (there are well defined operations
involving null pointers) even thought it is not dereferenceable.
</p></blockquote>

<p>
and <a href="http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/InputIterator.html">proceeds</a>:
</p>

<blockquote><p>
An iterator is valid if it is dereferenceable or past-the-end.
</p></blockquote>

<p>
Even if the standard prefers a different meaning of singular here, the
change was incomplete, because by restricting feasible expressions of singular
iterators to destruction and assignment isn't sufficient for a past-the-end
iterator: Of-course it must still be equality-comparable and in general be a readable value.
</p>

<p>
Second, the standard doesn't clearly say whether a past-the-end value is
a valid iterator or not. E.g. 20.6.12 [specialized.algorithms]/1 says:
</p>

<blockquote><p>
In all of the following algorithms, the formal template parameter <tt>ForwardIterator</tt> 
is required to satisfy the requirements of a forward iterator (24.1.3)
[..], and is required to have the property that no exceptions are thrown from [..], or
dereference of valid iterators.
</p></blockquote>

<p>
The standard should make better clear what "singular pointer" and "valid
iterator" means. The fact that the meaning of a valid <em>value</em>
has a core language meaning doesn't imply that for an iterator concept
the term "valid iterator" has the same meaning.
</p>

<p>
Let me add a final example: In X [allocator.concepts.members] of
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2009/n2914.pdf">N2914</a>
we find:
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
pointer X::allocate(size_type n);
</pre>

<blockquote><p>
11 <i>Returns:</i> a pointer to the allocated memory. [<i>Note:</i> if <tt>n == 0</tt>, the return
value is unspecified. &mdash;<i>end note</i>]
</p></blockquote>

<p>
[..]
</p>

<pre>
void X::deallocate(pointer p, size_type n);
</pre>

<blockquote><p>
<i>Preconditions:</i> <tt>p</tt> shall be a non-singular pointer value obtained from a call
to <tt>allocate()</tt> on this allocator or one that compares equal to it.
</p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>
If singular pointer value would include null pointers this make the
preconditions
unclear if the pointer value is a result of <tt>allocate(0)</tt>: Since the return value
is unspecified, it could be a null pointer. Does that mean that programmers
need to check the pointer value for a null value before calling deallocate?
</p>

<p><i>[
2010-11-09 Daniel comments:
]</i></p>


<p>
A later paper is in preparation.
</p>

<p><i>[
2010 Batavia:
]</i></p>


<p>
Doesn't need to be resolved for Ox
</p>


<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>
Consider to await the paper.
</p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="1214"></a>1214. Insufficient/inconsistent key immutability requirements for  associative containers</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.2.4 [associative.reqmts] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2009-09-20 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#associative.reqmts">active issues</a> in [associative.reqmts].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#associative.reqmts">issues</a> in [associative.reqmts].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Ready">Ready</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
Scott Meyers' mentions on a recent posting on <a
href="http://groups.google.de/group/comp.std.c++/msg/6f9160fc428bcbea">c.s.c++</a>
some arguments that point to an incomplete resolution
of <a href="lwg-defects.html#103">103</a> and to an inconsistency of requirements on keys in ordered and
unordered associative
containers:
</p>

<blockquote>
<p>
1) <a href="lwg-defects.html#103">103</a> introduced the term immutable without defining it in a unique manner in
23.2.4 [associative.reqmts]/5:
</p>

<blockquote><p>
[..] Keys in an associative container are immutable.
</p></blockquote>

<p>
According to conventional dictionaries immutable is an unconditional way of
saying that something cannot be changed. So without any further explicit
allowance a user <em>always</em> runs into undefined behavior if (s)he attempts
to modify such a key. IMO this was not the intend of the committee to resolve
<a href="lwg-defects.html#103">103</a> in that way because the comments suggest an interpretation that
should give any user the freedom to modify the key in an <em>explicit</em> way
<em>provided</em> it would not affect the sort order in that container.
</p>

<p>
2) Another observation was that surprisingly no similar 'safety guards'
exists against unintentional key changes for the unordered associative
containers, specifically there is no such requirement as in
23.2.4 [associative.reqmts]/6 that "both <tt>iterator</tt> and <tt>const_iterator</tt> are constant
iterators". But the need for such protection against unintentional
changes as well as the constraints in which manner any explicit
changes may be performed are both missing and necessary, because
such changes could potentially change the <em>equivalence</em> of keys that
is measured by the <tt>hasher</tt> and <tt>key_equal</tt>.
</p>

<p>
I suggest to fix the unconditional wording involved with "immutable keys"
by at least adding a hint for the reader that users <em>may</em> perform such
changes in an explicit manner <em>and</em> to perform similar wording changes
as <a href="lwg-defects.html#103">103</a> did for the ordered associative containers also for the unordered
containers.
</p>
</blockquote>

<p><i>[
2010-03-27 Daniel provides wording.
]</i></p>


<blockquote><p>
This update attempts to provide normative wording that harmonizes the key and
function object constraints of associative and unordered containers.
</p></blockquote>

<p><i>[
2010 Batavia:
]</i></p>


<p>
We're uncomfortable with the first agenda item, and we can live with the second agenda 
item being applied before or after Madrid. 
</p>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington
]</i></p>


<p>
Further discussion persuades us this issue is Ready (and so moved).
We may need a further issue clarifying the notion of key <i>value</i>
vs. key <i>object</i>, as object identity appears to be important
to this wording.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>
Change 23.2.4 [associative.reqmts]/2 as indicated: <i>[This ensures that
associative containers make better clear what this "arbitrary" type is, as the
unordered containers do in 23.2.5 [unord.req]/3]</i>
</p>

<blockquote><p>
2 Each associative container is parameterized on <tt>Key</tt> and an ordering
relation <tt>Compare</tt> that induces a strict weak ordering (25.4) on elements
of <tt>Key</tt>. In addition, <tt>map</tt> and <tt>multimap</tt> associate an
arbitrary <ins><em>mapped type</em></ins><del>type</del> <tt>T</tt> with the
<tt>Key</tt>. The object of type <tt>Compare</tt> is called the <em>comparison
object</em> of a container.
</p></blockquote>
</li>

<li>
<p>
Change 23.2.4 [associative.reqmts]/5 as indicated: <i>[This removes the
too strong requirement that keys must not be changed at all and brings this line
in sync with 23.2.5 [unord.req]/7. We take care about the real
constraints by the remaining suggested changes. The rationale provided by LWG
<a href="lwg-defects.html#103">103</a> didn't really argue why that addition is necessary, and I
believe the remaining additions make it clear that any user changes have strong
restrictions]</i>:
</p>

<blockquote><p>
5 For <tt>set</tt> and <tt>multiset</tt> the value type is the same as the key
type. For <tt>map</tt> and <tt>multimap</tt> it is equal to <tt>pair&lt;const
Key, T&gt;</tt>. <del>Keys in an associative container are immutable.</del>
</p></blockquote>
</li>

<li>
<p>
Change 23.2.5 [unord.req]/3+4 as indicated: <i>[The current sentence of
p.4 has doesn't say something really new and this whole subclause misses to
define the concepts of the container-specific hasher <i>object</i> and predicate
<i>object</i>. We introduce the term <em>key equality predicate</em> which is
already used in the requirements table. This change does not really correct part
of this issue, but is recommended to better clarify the nomenclature and the
difference between the function objects and the function object <em>types</em>,
which is important, because both can potentially be stateful.]</i>
</p>

<blockquote>
<p>
3 Each unordered associative container is parameterized by <tt>Key</tt>, by a
function object type <tt>Hash</tt> that meets the <tt>Hash</tt> requirements
(20.2.4) and acts as a hash function for argument values of type <tt>Key</tt>,
and by a binary predicate <tt>Pred</tt> that induces an equivalence relation on
values of type <tt>Key</tt>. Additionally, <tt>unordered_map</tt> and
<tt>unordered_multimap</tt> associate an arbitrary <em>mapped type</em>
<tt>T</tt> with the <tt>Key</tt>.
</p>

<p>
4 <ins>The container's object of type <tt>Hash</tt> - denoted by
<tt>hash</tt> - is called the <em>hash function</em> of the container.
The container's object of type <tt>Pred</tt> - denoted by
<tt>pred</tt> - is called the <em>key equality predicate</em> of the
container.</ins><del>A hash function is a function object that takes a single
argument of type <tt>Key</tt> and returns a value of type
<tt>std::size_t</tt></del>.
</p>
</blockquote>
</li>

<li>
<p>
Change 23.2.5 [unord.req]/5 as indicated: <i>[This adds a similar
safe-guard as the last sentence of 23.2.4 [associative.reqmts]/3]</i>
</p>

<blockquote><p>
5 Two values <tt>k1</tt> and <tt>k2</tt> of type <tt>Key</tt> are considered
equivalent if the container's <ins>key equality
predicate</ins><del><tt>key_equal</tt> function object</del> returns
<tt>true</tt> when passed those values. If <tt>k1</tt> and <tt>k2</tt> are
equivalent, the <ins>container's</ins> hash function shall return the same value
for both. [<i>Note:</i> thus, when an unordered associative container is
instantiated with a non-default <tt>Pred</tt> parameter it usually needs a
non-default <tt>Hash</tt> parameter as well. &mdash; <i>end note</i>] <ins>For
any two keys <tt>k1</tt> and <tt>k2</tt> in the same container, calling
<tt>pred(k1, k2)</tt> shall always return the same value. For any key <tt>k</tt>
in a container, calling <tt>hash(k)</tt> shall always return the same
value.</ins>
</p></blockquote>
</li>

<li>
<p>
After 23.2.5 [unord.req]/7 add the following new paragraph: <i>[This
ensures the same level of compile-time protection that we already require for
associative containers. It is necessary for similar reasons, because any change
in the stored key which would change it's equality relation to others or would
change it's hash value such that it would no longer fall in the same bucket,
would break the container invariants]</i>
</p>

<blockquote>
<p>
7 For <tt>unordered_set</tt> and <tt>unordered_multiset</tt> the value type is
the same as the key type. For <tt>unordered_map</tt> and
<tt>unordered_multimap</tt> it is <tt>std::pair&lt;const Key, T&gt;</tt>.
</p>
<p>
<ins>For unordered containers where the value type is the same as the key type,
both <tt>iterator</tt> and <tt>const_iterator</tt> are constant iterators. It is
unspecified whether or not <tt>iterator</tt> and <tt>const_iterator</tt> are the
same type. [<i>Note:</i> <tt>iterator</tt> and <tt>const_iterator</tt> have
identical semantics in this case, and <tt>iterator</tt> is convertible to
<tt>const_iterator</tt>. Users can avoid violating the One Definition Rule by
always using <tt>const_iterator</tt> in their function parameter lists. &mdash;
<i>end note</i>]</ins>
</p>
</blockquote>
</li>

</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="1450"></a>1450. [FCD] Contradiction in regex_constants</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 28.5.2 [re.matchflag] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> BSI <b>Opened:</b> 2010-08-25 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p><b>Addresses GB-127</b></p>

<p>
The Bitmask Type requirements in 17.5.2.1.3 [bitmask.types] p.3 say that
all elements on a bitmask type have distinct values, but
28.5.2 [re.matchflag] defines <tt>regex_constants::match_default</tt> and
<tt>regex_constants::format_default</tt> as elements of the
bitmask type <tt>regex_constants::match_flag_type</tt>, both with
value 0. This is a contradiction.
</p>

<p><i>[
Resolution proposed by ballot comment:
]</i></p>

<blockquote><p>
One of the bitmask elements should be removed
from the declaration and should be defined
separately, in the same manner as
<tt>ios_base::adjustfield</tt>, <tt>ios_base::basefield</tt> and
<tt>ios_base::floatfield</tt> are defined by 27.5.3.1.2 [ios::fmtflags] p.2
and Table 120. These are constants of a bitmask
type, but are not distinct elements, they have
more than one value set in the bitmask.
<tt>regex_constants::format_default</tt> should be
specified as a constant with the same value as
<tt>regex_constants::match_default</tt>.
</p></blockquote>

<p><i>[
2010-10-31 Daniel comments:
]</i></p>

<p>
Strictly speaking, a bitmask type cannot have any element of value 0 at all, because
any such value would contradict the requirement expressed in 17.5.2.1.3 [bitmask.types] p. 3:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
for any pair <em>Ci</em> and <em>Cj</em>, <em>Ci</em> &amp; <em>Ci</em> is nonzero
</p></blockquote>
<p>
So, actually <em>both</em> <tt>regex_constants::match_default</tt> and
<tt>regex_constants::format_default</tt> are only constants of the type
<tt>regex_constants::match_flag_type</tt>, and no bitmask elements.
</p>

<p><i>[
2010-11-03 Daniel comments and provides a proposed resolution:
]</i></p>


<p>The proposed resolution is written against N3126 and considered as a further improvement
of the fixes suggested by <a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3110.html">n3110</a>.
</p>

<blockquote>
<p>
Add the following sentence to 28.5.2 [re.matchflag]  paragraph 1:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
1 The type <tt>regex_constants::match_flag_type</tt> is an implementation-defined bitmask type (17.5.2.1.3).
Matching a regular expression against a sequence of characters [first,last) proceeds according to the
rules of the grammar specified for the regular expression object, modified according to the effects listed in
Table 136 for any bitmask elements set. <ins>Type <tt>regex_constants::match_flag_type</tt> also defines the 
constants <tt>regex_constants::match_default</tt> and <tt>regex_constants::format_default</tt>.</ins>
</p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington
]</i></p>


<p>
It appears the key problem is the phrasing of the bitmask requirements.  Jeremiah supplies updated wording.
</p>

<p>
Pete Becker has also provided an alternative resolution.
</p>

<p>
Ammend 17.5.2.1.3 [bitmask.types]:
</p>
<p>
Change the list of values for "enum bit mask" in p2 from
</p>
<p>
<tt><i>V0</i> = 1 &lt;&lt; 0, <i>V1</i> = 1 &lt;&lt; 1, <i>V2</i> = 1 &lt;&lt; 2, <i>V3</i> = 1 &lt;&lt; 3, ...</tt>.
</p>
<p>
to
</p>
<p>
<tt><i>V0</i> = 0, <i>V1</i> = 1 &lt;&lt; 0, <i>V2</i> = 1 &lt;&lt; 1, <i>V3</i> = 1 &lt;&lt; 2,  ...</tt>.
</p>
<p>
Here, the names <i>C0</i>, <i>C1</i>, etc. represent <i>bitmask elements</i> for this particular
bitmask type. All such <ins>non-zero</ins> elements have distinct values such that, for any pair
<i>Ci</i> and <i>Cj</i> <ins>where <i>i</i> != <i>j</i></ins>, <del><i>Ci &amp; Ci</i> is nonzero
and</del> <i>Ci &amp; Cj</i> is zero.
</p>
<p>
Change bullet 3 of paragraph 4:
</p>
<p>
<del>The</del><ins>A non-zero</ins> value Y is set in the object X if the expression X &amp; Y is nonzero.
</p>


<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>
Ammend 17.5.2.1.3 [bitmask.types] p3:
</p>
<p>
Here, the names <i>C0</i>, <i>C1</i>, etc. represent <i>bitmask elements</i> for this particular
bitmask type. All such elements have distinct<ins>, non-zero</ins> values such that, for any pair
<i>Ci</i> and <i>Cj</i> <ins>where <i>i</i> != <i>j</i>,</ins> <i>Ci &amp; Ci</i> is nonzero
and <i>Ci &amp; Cj</i> is zero. <ins>Additionally, the value 0 is used to represent an
<i>empty bitmask</i>, in which no bitmask elements are set.</ins>
</p>

<p>
Add the following sentence to 28.5.2 [re.matchflag]  paragraph 1:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
1 The type <tt>regex_constants::match_flag_type</tt> is an implementation-defined bitmask type (17.5.2.1.3).
<ins>The constants of that type, except for <tt>match_default</tt> and <tt>format_default</tt>, are bitmask
elements. The <tt>match_default</tt> and <tt>format_default</tt> constants are empty bitmasks.</ins> Matching
a regular expression against a sequence of characters [first,last) proceeds according to the rules of the
grammar specified for the regular expression object, modified according to the effects listed in Table 136
for any bitmask elements set.
</p></blockquote>





<hr>
<h3><a name="1526"></a>1526. [FCD] C++ should not impose thread safety requirements on C99 library implementations</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 17.6.5.9 [res.on.data.races] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Deferred">Deferred</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> BSI <b>Opened:</b> 2011-03-24 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Deferred">Deferred</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p><b>Addresses GB-111</b></p>

<p>Section 17.6.5.9 [res.on.data.races], Data Race Avoidance, requires the C++ Standard Library to avoid data races 
that might otherwise result from two threads making calls to C++ Standard Library functions on 
distinct objects. The C standard library is part of the C++ Standard Library and some C++ Standary library 
functions (parts of the Localization library, as well as Numeric Conversions in 21.5), are specified 
to make use of the C standard library. Therefore, the C++ standard indirectly imposes a requirement 
on the thread safety of the C standard library. However, since the C standard does not address the 
concept of thread safety conforming C implementations exist that do no provide such guarantees. 
This conflict needs to be reconciled.</p>

<p>Suggested resolution by national body comment:</p>

<blockquote><p>
remove the requirement to make use of <tt>strtol()</tt> and <tt>sprintf()</tt> since these functions depend on the 
global C locale and thus cannot be made thread safe.
</p></blockquote>

<p><i>[2011-03-24 Madrid meeting]</i></p>


<p>Deferred</p>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington
]</i></p>

<p>
Alisdair: PJ, does this cause a problem in C?
</p>
<p>
PJ: Every implementation know of is thread safe.
</p>
<p>
Pete: There a couple of effects that are specified on strtol() and sprintf() which is a problem.
</p>
<p>
PJ: When C++ talks about C calls it should be "as if" calling the function.
</p>
<p>
Pete: Culprit is to string stuff. My fault.
</p>
<p>
PJ: Not your fault. You did what you were told. Distinct resolution to change wording.
</p>
<p>
Dietmar: What would we break if we change it back?
</p>
<p>
Pete: Nothing. If implemented on top of thread safe C library you are just fine.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair: Anyone want to clean up wording and put it back to what Pete gave us?
</p>
<p>
Alisdair: No volunteers. Do we want to mark as NAD? We could leave it as deferred.
</p>
<p>
Stefanus: Did original submitter care about this?
</p>
<p>
Lawrence: There is some work to make local calls thread safe. The resolution would be to call those thread safe version.
</p>
<p>
Pete: "As if called under single threaded C program"
</p>
<p>
<b>Action Item</b> (Alisdair): Write wording for this issue.
</p>



<p><b>Rationale:</b></p><p>No consensus to make a change at this time</p>

<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2003"></a>2003. String exception inconsistency in erase.</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 21.4.1 [string.require] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jos&eacute; Daniel Garc&iacute;a S&aacute;nchez <b>Opened:</b> 2010-10-21 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#string.require">issues</a> in [string.require].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
Clause 21.4.1 [string.require]p3 states:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
No <tt>erase()</tt> or <tt>pop_back()</tt> member function shall throw
any exceptions.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
However in 21.4.6.5 [string::erase] p2 the first version of <tt>erase</tt> has
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Throws</i>: <tt>out_of_range</tt> if <tt>pos > size()</tt>.
</p></blockquote>

<p><i>[2011-03-24 Madrid meeting]</i></p>


<p>
Beman: Don't want to just change this, can we just say "unless otherwise specified"?
<p/>
Alisdair: Leave open, but update proposed resolution to say something like "unless otherwise specified".
<p/>
General agreement that it should be corrected but not a stop-ship.
<p/>
Action: Update proposed wording for issue 2003 as above, but leave Open. 
</p>


<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>
Update [string.require]p/3:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
3 No <del><tt>erase()</tt> or</del> <tt>pop_back()</tt> member function
shall throw any exceptions.
</p></blockquote>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2005"></a>2005. <tt>unordered_map::insert(T&amp;&amp;)</tt> protection should apply to <tt>map</tt> too</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.4.4.4 [map.modifiers], 23.4.5.3 [multimap.modifiers], X [unord.map.modifiers], X [unord.multimap.modifiers] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Review">Review</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> P.J. Plauger <b>Opened:</b> 2010-10-14 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Review">Review</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
In [unord.map.modifiers], the signature:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class P&gt;
    pair&lt;iterator, bool&gt; insert(P&amp;&amp; obj);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
now has an added Remarks paragraph:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Remarks</i>: This signature shall not participate in overload resolution unless <tt>P</tt>
is implicitly convertible to <tt>value_type</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
The same is true for <tt>unordered_multimap</tt>.
<p/>
But neither <tt>map</tt> nor <tt>multimap</tt> have this constraint, even though it is a
Good Thing(TM) in those cases as well.
</p>

<p><i>[
The submitter suggests: Add the same Remarks clause to [map.modifiers] and [multimap.modifiers].
]</i></p>


<p><i>[
2010-10-29 Daniel comments:
]</i></p>


<p>
I believe both paragraphs need more cleanup: First, the current Requires element conflict with the Remark; 
second, it seems to me that the whole single Requires element is intended to be split into a Requires
and an Effects element; third, the reference to <tt>tuple</tt> is incorrect (noticed by Paolo Carlini);
fourth, it refers to some non-existing <tt>InputIterator</tt> parameter relevant for a completely different
overload; sixth, the return type of the overload with hint is wrong.
The following proposed resolution tries to solve these issues as well and uses similar wording as for
the corresponding unordered containers. Unfortunately it has some redundancy over Table&nbsp;99, but I did
not remove the specification because of the more general template parameter <tt>P</tt> - the Table&nbsp;99 
requirements apply only for an argument <em>identical</em> to <tt>value_type</tt>.
<p/>
Daniel's Proposed resolution (not current):
</p>

<blockquote class="note">
<ol>
<li>Change 23.4.4.4 [map.modifiers] around p. 1 as indicated:
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class P&gt; pair&lt;iterator, bool&gt; insert(P&amp;&amp; x);
template &lt;class P&gt; <del>pair&lt;</del>iterator<del>, bool&gt;</del> insert(const_iterator position, P&amp;&amp; x);
</pre><blockquote><p>
1 <em>Requires</em>: <del><tt>P</tt> shall be convertible to </del><tt>value_type</tt><ins> is constructible 
from <tt>std::forward&lt;P&gt;(x)</tt>.</ins>.
<p/>
<del>If <tt>P</tt> is instantiated as a reference type, then the argument <tt>x</tt> is copied from. Otherwise <tt>x</tt> is considered
to be an rvalue as it is converted to <tt>value_type</tt> and inserted into the map. Specifically, in
such cases <tt>CopyConstructible</tt> is not required of <tt>key_type</tt> or <tt>mapped_type</tt> unless the conversion
from <tt>P</tt> specifically requires it (e.g., if <tt>P</tt> is a <tt>tuple&lt;const key_type, mapped_type&gt;</tt>, then <tt>key_type</tt>
must be <tt>CopyConstructible</tt>). The signature taking <tt>InputIterator</tt> parameters does not require
<tt>CopyConstructible</tt> of either <tt>key_type</tt> or <tt>mapped_type</tt> if the dereferenced <tt>InputIterator</tt> returns a
non-const rvalue <tt>pair&lt;key_type,mapped_type&gt;</tt>. Otherwise <tt>CopyConstructible</tt> is required for both
<tt>key_type</tt> and <tt>mapped_type</tt>.</del><br/>
<ins>? <em>Effects</em>: Inserts <tt>x</tt> converted to <tt>value_type</tt> if and only if there is no element in the container with
key equivalent to the key of <tt>value_type(x)</tt>. For the second form, the iterator <tt>position</tt> is a hint pointing to where the
search should start.</ins>
<p/>
<ins>? <em>Returns</em>: For the first form, the <tt>bool</tt> component of the returned <tt>pair</tt> object indicates whether the 
insertion took place and the iterator component - or for the second form the returned iterator - points to the element with key equivalent 
to the key of <tt>value_type(x)</tt>.</ins>
<p/>
<ins>? <em>Complexity</em>: Logarithmic in general, but amortized constant if <tt>x</tt> is inserted right before <tt>position</tt>.</ins>
<p/>
<ins>? <em>Remarks</em>: These signatures shall not participate in overload resolution unless <tt>P</tt> 
is implicitly convertible to <tt>value_type</tt>.</ins>
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
<li>Change 23.4.5.3 [multimap.modifiers] around p. 1 as indicated:
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class P&gt; iterator insert(P&amp;&amp; x);
template &lt;class P&gt; iterator insert(const_iterator position, P&amp;&amp; x);
</pre><blockquote><p>
1 <em>Requires</em>: <del><tt>P</tt> shall be convertible to </del><tt>value_type</tt> <ins>is constructible from 
<tt>std::forward&lt;P&gt;(x)</tt></ins>.
<p/>
<del>If <tt>P</tt> is instantiated as a reference type, then the argument <tt>x</tt> is copied from. Otherwise 
<tt>x</tt> is considered to be an rvalue as it is converted to <tt>value_type</tt> and inserted into the map. 
Specifically, in such cases <tt>CopyConstructible</tt> is not required of <tt>key_type</tt> or <tt>mapped_type</tt> 
unless the conversion from <tt>P</tt> specifically requires it (e.g., if <tt>P</tt> is a <tt>tuple&lt;const key_type, mapped_type&gt;</tt>, 
then <tt>key_type</tt> must be <tt>CopyConstructible</tt>). The signature taking <tt>InputIterator</tt> parameters 
does not require <tt>CopyConstructible</tt> of either <tt>key_type</tt> or <tt>mapped_type</tt> if the dereferenced 
<tt>InputIterator</tt> returns a non-const rvalue <tt>pair&lt;key_type, mapped_type&gt;</tt>. Otherwise <tt>CopyConstructible</tt> 
is required for both <tt>key_type</tt> and <tt>mapped_type</tt>.</del><br/>
<ins>? <em>Effects</em>: Inserts <tt>x</tt> converted to <tt>value_type</tt>. For the second form, the iterator <tt>position</tt> 
is a hint pointing to where the search should start.</ins>
<p/>
<ins>? <em>Returns</em>: An iterator that points to the element with key equivalent to the key of <tt>value_type(x)</tt>.</ins>
<p/>
<ins>? <em>Complexity</em>: Logarithmic in general, but amortized constant if <tt>x</tt> is inserted right before <tt>position</tt>.</ins>
<p/>
<ins>? <em>Remarks</em>: These signatures shall not participate in overload resolution unless <tt>P</tt> 
is implicitly convertible to <tt>value_type</tt>.</ins>
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>

</blockquote>

<p><i>[
2010 Batavia:
]</i></p>


<p>
We need <tt>is_convertible</tt>, not <tt>is_constructible</tt>, both in ordered and unordered containers. 
</p>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington
]</i></p>


<p>
The effects of these inserts can be concisely stated in terms of emplace().
Also, the correct term is "EmplaceConstructible", not "constructible".
</p>

<p>
New wording by Pablo, eliminating duplicate requirements already implied by the effects clause.  Move to Review.
</p>

<p><i>[
2011-10-02 Daniel comments and refines the proposed wording
]</i></p>


<blockquote><p>
Unfortunately the template constraints expressed as "<tt>P</tt> is implicitly convertible to <tt>value_type</tt>"
reject the intended effect to support move-only key types, which was the original intention when
the library became move-enabled through the rvalue-reference proposals by Howard (This can clearly be deduced
from existing carefully selected wording that emphasizes that <tt>CopyConstructible</tt> is only required
for special situations involving lvalues or const rvalues as arguments). The root of the problem is based
on current core rules, where an "implicitly converted" value has copy-initialization semantics. Consider
a move-only key type <tt>KM</tt>, some mapped type <tt>T</tt>, and a source value <tt>p</tt> of type <tt>P</tt> 
equal to <tt>std::pair&lt;KM, T&gt;</tt>, this is equivalent to:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
std::pair&lt;const KM, T&gt; dest = std::move(p);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
Now 8.5 [dcl.init] p16 b6 sb2 says that the effects of this heterogeneous copy-initialization (<tt>p</tt>
has a different type than <tt>dest</tt>) are as-if a temporary of the target type <tt>std::pair&lt;const KM, T&gt;</tt>
is produced from the rvalue <tt>p</tt> of type <tt>P</tt> (which is fine), and this temporary is used to initialize 
<tt>dest</tt>. This second step cannot succeed, because we cannot move from <tt>const KM</tt> to <tt>const KM</tt>. This 
means that <tt>std::is_convertible&lt;P, std::pair&lt;const KM, T&gt;&gt;::value</tt> is false.
<p/>
But the actual code that is required (with the default allocator) is simply a direct-initialization
from <tt>P</tt> to <tt>value_type</tt>, so imposing an implicit conversion is more than necessary. Therefore
I strongly recommend to reduce the "overload participation" constraint to  
<tt>std::is_constructible&lt;std::pair&lt;const KM, T&gt;, P&gt;::value</tt> instead. This change is the
only change that has been performed to the previous proposed wording from Pablo shown below. 
</p></blockquote>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>

<ol>
<li>Change 23.4.4.4 [map.modifiers] around p. 1 as indicated:
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class P&gt; pair&lt;iterator, bool&gt; insert(P&amp;&amp; x);
template &lt;class P&gt; <del>pair&lt;</del>iterator<del>, bool&gt;</del> insert(const_iterator position, P&amp;&amp; x);
</pre><blockquote>
<del>1 <em>Requires</em>: <tt>P</tt> shall be convertible to <tt>value_type</tt>.</del>
<p/>
<del>If <tt>P</tt> is instantiated as a reference type, then the argument <tt>x</tt> is copied from. Otherwise <tt>x</tt> is considered
to be an rvalue as it is converted to <tt>value_type</tt> and inserted into the map. Specifically, in
such cases <tt>CopyConstructible</tt> is not required of <tt>key_type</tt> or <tt>mapped_type</tt> unless the conversion
from <tt>P</tt> specifically requires it (e.g., if <tt>P</tt> is a <tt>tuple&lt;const key_type, mapped_type&gt;</tt>, then <tt>key_type</tt>
must be <tt>CopyConstructible</tt>). The signature taking <tt>InputIterator</tt> parameters does not require
<tt>CopyConstructible</tt> of either <tt>key_type</tt> or <tt>mapped_type</tt> if the dereferenced <tt>InputIterator</tt> returns a
non-const rvalue <tt>pair&lt;key_type,mapped_type&gt;</tt>. Otherwise <tt>CopyConstructible</tt> is required for both
<tt>key_type</tt> and <tt>mapped_type</tt>.</del><br/>
<ins>? <em>Effects</em>: The first form is equivalent to
<tt>return emplace(std::forward&lt;P&gt;(x))</tt>.
The second form is equivalent to
<tt>return emplace_hint(position, std::forward&lt;P&gt;(x))</tt>.</ins>
<p/>
<ins>? <em>Remarks</em>: These signatures shall not participate in overload resolution unless 
<tt>std::is_constructible&lt;value_type, P&amp;&amp;&gt;::value</tt> is true.</ins>
<p/>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
<li>Change 23.4.5.3 [multimap.modifiers] around p. 1 as indicated:
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class P&gt; iterator insert(P&amp;&amp; x);
template &lt;class P&gt; iterator insert(const_iterator position, P&amp;&amp; x);
</pre><blockquote>
<del>1 <em>Requires</em>: <tt>P</tt> shall be convertible to <tt>value_type</tt>.</del>
<p/>
<del>If <tt>P</tt> is instantiated as a reference type, then the argument <tt>x</tt> is copied from. Otherwise 
<tt>x</tt> is considered to be an rvalue as it is converted to <tt>value_type</tt> and inserted into the map. 
Specifically, in such cases <tt>CopyConstructible</tt> is not required of <tt>key_type</tt> or <tt>mapped_type</tt> 
unless the conversion from <tt>P</tt> specifically requires it (e.g., if <tt>P</tt> is a <tt>tuple&lt;const key_type, mapped_type&gt;</tt>, 
then <tt>key_type</tt> must be <tt>CopyConstructible</tt>). The signature taking <tt>InputIterator</tt> parameters 
does not require <tt>CopyConstructible</tt> of either <tt>key_type</tt> or <tt>mapped_type</tt> if the dereferenced 
<tt>InputIterator</tt> returns a non-const rvalue <tt>pair&lt;key_type, mapped_type&gt;</tt>. Otherwise <tt>CopyConstructible</tt> 
is required for both <tt>key_type</tt> and <tt>mapped_type</tt>.</del><br/>
<ins>? <em>Effects</em>: The first form is equivalent to
<tt>return emplace(std::forward&lt;P&gt;(x))</tt>.
The second form is equivalent to
<tt>return emplace_hint(position, std::forward&lt;P&gt;(x))</tt>.</ins>
<p/>
<ins>? <em>Remarks</em>: These signatures shall not participate in overload resolution unless 
<tt>std::is_constructible&lt;value_type, P&amp;&amp;&gt;::value</tt> is true.</ins>
<p/>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
<li>Change 23.5.4.4 [unord.map.modifers] around p. 1 as indicated:
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class P&gt;
pair&lt;iterator, bool&gt; insert(P&amp;&amp; obj);
</pre>
<blockquote>
<del>1 <em>Requires</em>: <tt>value_type</tt> is constructible from <tt>std::forward&lt;P&gt;(obj)</tt>.</del>
<p/>
2 <em>Effects</em>:
<ins>equivalent to <tt>return emplace(std::forward&lt;P&gt;(obj))</tt>.</ins>
<del>Inserts obj converted to <tt>value_type</tt> if and only if there is no element in the container with
key equivalent to the key of <tt>value_type(obj)</tt>.</del>
<p/>
<del>3 <em>Returns</em>: The bool component of the returned pair object indicates whether the insertion took place
and the iterator component points to the element with key equivalent to the key of <tt>value_type(obj)</tt>.</del>
<p/>
<del>4 <em>Complexity</em>: Average case O(1), worst case O(size()).</del>
<p/>
<del>5</del><ins>3</ins> <em>Remarks</em>: This signature shall not participate in overload resolution unless 
<del><tt>P</tt> is implicitly convertible to <tt>value_type</tt></del><ins><tt>std::is_constructible&lt;value_type, 
P&amp;&amp;&gt;::value</tt> is true</ins>.
<p/>
</blockquote>
<pre>template &lt;class P&gt;
iterator insert(const_iterator hint, P&amp;&amp; obj);
</pre>
<blockquote>
<del>6 <em>Requires</em>: <tt>value_type</tt> is constructible from <tt>std::forward&lt;P&gt;(obj)</tt>.</del>
<p/>
<del>7</del><em>?</em> <em>Effects</em>:
<ins>equivalent to <tt>return emplace_hint(hint, std::forward&lt;P&gt;(obj))</tt>.</ins>
<del>Inserts obj converted to <tt>value_type</tt> if and only if there is no element in the container with
key equivalent to the key of <tt>value_type(obj)</tt>. The iterator hint is a hint pointing to where the
search should start.</del>
<p/>
<del>8 <em>Returns</em>: An iterator that points to the element with key equivalent to the key of 
<tt>value_type(obj)</tt>.</del>
<p/>
<del>9 <em>Complexity</em>: Average case O(1), worst case O(size()).</del>
<p/>
<del>10</del><em>?</em> <em>Remarks</em>: This signature shall not participate in overload resolution unless 
<del><tt>P</tt> is implicitly convertible to <tt>value_type</tt></del><ins><tt>std::is_constructible&lt;value_type, 
P&amp;&amp;&gt;::value</tt> is true</ins>.
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
<li>Change 23.5.5.3 [unord.multimap.modifers] around p. 1 as indicated:
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class P&gt;
iterator insert(P&amp;&amp; obj);
</pre>
<blockquote>
<del>1 <em>Requires</em>: <tt>value_type</tt> is constructible from <tt>std::forward&lt;P&gt;(obj)</tt>.</del>
<p/>
2 <em>Effects</em>:
<ins>equivalent to <tt>return emplace(std::forward&lt;P&gt;(obj))</tt>.</ins>
<del>Inserts obj converted to <tt>value_type</tt>.</del>
<p/>
<del>3 <em>Returns</em>: An iterator that points to the element with key equivalent to the key of <tt>value_type(obj)</tt>.</del>
<p/>
<del>4 <em>Complexity</em>: Average case O(1), worst case O(size()).</del>
<p/>
<del>5</del><ins>3</ins> <em>Remarks</em>: This signature shall not participate in overload resolution 
unless <del><tt>P</tt> is implicitly convertible to <tt>value_type</tt></del><ins><tt>std::is_constructible&lt;value_type, 
P&amp;&amp;&gt;::value</tt> is true</ins>.
</blockquote>
<pre>
template &lt;class P&gt;
iterator insert(const_iterator hint, P&amp;&amp; obj);
</pre>
<blockquote>
<del>6 <em>Requires</em>: <tt>value_type</tt> is constructible from <tt>std::forward&lt;P&gt;(obj)</tt>.</del>
<p/>
<del>7</del><em>?</em> <em>Effects</em>:
<ins>equivalent to <tt>return emplace_hint(hint, std::forward&lt;P&gt;(obj))</tt>.</ins>
<del>Inserts obj converted to <tt>value_type</tt>. The iterator hint is a hint pointing to where the search
should start.</del>
<p/>
<del>8 <em>Returns</em>: An iterator that points to the element with key equivalent to the key of <tt>value_type</tt>(obj).</del>
<p/>
<del>9 <em>Complexity</em>: Average case O(1), worst case O(size()).</del>
<p/>
<del>10</del><ins><em>?</em></ins> <em>Remarks</em>: This signature shall not participate in overload resolution 
unless <del><tt>P</tt> is implicitly convertible to <tt>value_type</tt></del><ins><tt>std::is_constructible&lt;value_type, 
P&amp;&amp;&gt;::value</tt> is true</ins>.
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2009"></a>2009. Reporting out-of-bound values on numeric string conversions</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 21.5 [string.conversions] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Alisdair Meredith <b>Opened:</b> 2010-07-19 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#string.conversions">issues</a> in [string.conversions].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Ready">Ready</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
The functions (<tt>w</tt>)<tt>stoi</tt> and (<tt>w</tt>)<tt>stof</tt>
are specified in terms of calling C library APIs for potentially wider
types.  The integer and floating-point versions have subtly different
behaviour when reading values that are too large to convert.  The
floating point case will throw <tt>out_of_bound</tt> if the read value
is too large to convert to the wider type used in the implementation,
but behaviour is undefined if the converted value cannot narrow to a
float.  The integer case will throw <tt>out_of_bounds</tt> if the
converted value cannot be represented in the narrower type, but throws
<tt>invalid_argument</tt>, rather than <tt>out_of_range</tt>, if the
conversion to the wider type fails due to overflow.
</p>

<p>
Suggest that the Throws clause for both specifications should be
consistent, supporting the same set of fail-modes with the matching set
of exceptions.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>
21.5p3 [string.conversions]
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
int stoi(const string&amp; str, size_t *idx = 0, int base = 10);
long stol(const string&amp; str, size_t *idx = 0, int base = 10);
unsigned long stoul(const string&amp; str, size_t *idx = 0, int base = 10);
long long stoll(const string&amp; str, size_t *idx = 0, int base = 10);
unsigned long long stoull(const string&amp; str, size_t *idx = 0, int base = 10);
</pre>

<blockquote>
<p>
...
</p>
<p>
3 <i>Throws:</i> <tt>invalid_argument</tt> if <tt>strtol</tt>,
<tt>strtoul</tt>, <tt>strtoll</tt>, or <tt>strtoull</tt> reports that no
conversion could be performed. Throws <tt>out_of_range</tt> if
<ins><tt>strtol</tt>, <tt>strtoul</tt>, <tt>strtoll</tt> or
<tt>strtoull</tt> sets <tt>errno</tt> to <tt>ERANGE</tt>, or if</ins>
the converted value is outside the range of representable values for the
return type.
</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>
21.5p6 [string.conversions]
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
float stof(const string&amp; str, size_t *idx = 0);
double stod(const string&amp; str, size_t *idx = 0);
long double stold(const string&amp; str, size_t *idx = 0);
</pre>

<blockquote>
<p>
...
</p>
<p>
6 <i>Throws:</i> <tt>invalid_argument</tt> if <tt>strtod</tt> or
<tt>strtold</tt> reports that no conversion could be performed. Throws
<tt>out_of_range</tt> if <tt>strtod</tt> or <tt>strtold</tt> sets
<tt>errno</tt> to <tt>ERANGE</tt> <ins> or if the converted value is
outside the range of representable values for the return type</ins>.
</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2010"></a>2010. <tt>is_* traits</tt> for binding operations can't be meaningfully specialized</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.8.9.1.1 [func.bind.isbind] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Sean Hunt <b>Opened:</b> 2010-07-19 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#func.bind.isbind">issues</a> in [func.bind.isbind].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Ready">Ready</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
20.8.9.1.1 [func.bind.isbind] says for <tt>is_bind_expression</tt>:
</p>

<blockquote><p>
Users may specialize this template to indicate that a type should be
treated as a subexpression in a <tt>bind</tt> call.
</p></blockquote>

<p>
But it also says:
</p>

<blockquote><p>
If <tt>T</tt> is a type returned from <tt>bind</tt>,
<tt>is_bind_expression&lt;T&gt;</tt> shall be publicly derived from
<tt>integral_constant&lt;bool, true&gt;</tt>, otherwise from
<tt>integral_constant&lt;bool, false&gt;</tt>.
</p></blockquote>

<p>
This means that while the user is free to specialize, any specialization
would have to be <tt>false</tt> to avoid violating the second
requirement. A similar problem exists for <tt>is_placeholder</tt>.
</p>

<p><i>[
2010 Batavia (post meeting session)
]</i></p>

<p>
Alisdair recognises this is clearly a bug introduced by some wording he
wrote, the sole purpose of this metafunction is as a customization point
for users to write their own <tt>bind</tt>-expression types that participate
in the standard library <tt>bind</tt> protocol.  The consensus was that this
should be fixed in Madrid, moved to Open.
</p>

<p><i>[2011-05-13 Jonathan Wakely comments and provides proposed wording]</i></p>


<p>
The requirements are that <tt>is_bind_expression&lt;T&gt;::value</tt> is true when <tt>T</tt>
is a type returned from <tt>bind</tt>, false for any other type, except when
there's a specialization involving a user-defined type (N.B. 17.6.4.2.1 [namespace.std] 
means we don't need to say e.g. <tt>is_bind_expression&lt;string&gt;</tt> is false.)
<p/>
The obvious way to meet the requirements is for the primary template
to derive from <tt>integral_constant&lt;bool, false&gt;</tt> and for implementations
to provide specializations for the unspecified types returned from
<tt>bind</tt>.  User-defined specializations can do whatever they like, as long
as <tt>is_bind_expression::value</tt> is sane. There's no reason to forbid
users from defining <tt>is_bind_expression&lt;<i>user_defined_type</i>&gt;::value=false</tt>
if that's what they want to do.
<p/>
Similar reasoning applies to <tt>is_placeholder</tt>, but a further issue is
that 20.8.9.1.1 [func.bind.isbind] contains wording for <tt>is_placeholder</tt> but
contains no definition of it and the sub-clause name only refers to
<tt>is_bind_expression</tt>. The wording below proposes splitting paragraphs 3
and 4 of 20.8.9.1.1 [func.bind.isbind] into a new sub-clause covering
<tt>is_placeholder</tt>.
<p/>
If the template specializations added by the proposed wording are too
vague then they could be preceded by "for exposition only" comments
</p>

<p><i>[2011-05-18 Daniel comments and provides some refinements to the P&#47;R]</i></p>


<p>
Both <tt>bind</tt>-related type traits should take advantage of the
UnaryTypeTrait requirements. Additionally, the updated wording does not
imply that the implementation provides several specializations. Wording was 
used similar to the specification of the <tt>uses_allocator</tt> type trait 
(which unfortunately is not expressed in terms of BinaryTypeTrait requirements).
</p>

<p><i>[Bloomington, 2011]</i></p>

<p>
Move to Ready
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Change 20.8.9.1.1 [func.bind.isbind] to:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template&lt;class T&gt; struct is_bind_expression<ins>; <i>// see below</i></ins>
    <del>: integral_constant&lt;bool, <i>see below</i>&gt; { };</del>
}
</pre><blockquote><p>
-1- <tt>is_bind_expression</tt> can be used to detect function objects generated by <tt>bind</tt>. <tt>bind</tt> 
uses <tt>is_bind_expression</tt> to detect subexpressions. <del>Users may specialize this template to indicate 
that a type should be treated as a subexpression in a <tt>bind</tt> call.</del>
<p/>
-2- <del>If <tt>T</tt> is a type returned from <tt>bind</tt>, <tt>is_bind_expression&lt;T&gt;</tt> shall 
be publicly derived from <tt>integral_constant&lt;bool, true&gt;</tt>, otherwise from 
<tt>integral_constant&lt;bool, false&gt;</tt></del><ins>Instantiations of the <tt>is_bind_expression</tt> template
shall meet the UnaryTypeTrait requirements ([meta.rqmts]). The implementation shall provide a definition
that has a BaseCharacteristic of <tt>true_type</tt> if <tt>T</tt> is a type returned from <tt>bind</tt>, otherwise 
it shall have a BaseCharacteristic of <tt>false_type</tt>. A program may specialize this template for a user-defined 
type <tt>T</tt> to have a BaseCharacteristic of <tt>true_type</tt> to indicate that <tt>T</tt> should be treated 
as a subexpression in a <tt>bind</tt> call.</ins>.
<p/>
<del>-3- <tt>is_placeholder</tt> can be used to detect the standard placeholders <tt>_1</tt>, <tt>_2</tt>, and so on. 
<tt>bind</tt> uses <tt>is_placeholder</tt> to detect placeholders. Users may specialize this template to indicate 
a placeholder type.</del>
<p/>
<del>-4- If <tt>T</tt> is the type of <tt>std::placeholders::_J</tt>, <tt>is_placeholder&lt;T&gt;</tt> shall be 
publicly derived from <tt>integral_constant&lt;int, J&gt;</tt>, otherwise from <tt>integral_constant&lt;int, 0&gt;</tt>.</del>
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
<li><p>Insert a new sub-clause immediately following sub-clause 20.8.9.1.1 [func.bind.isbind], the suggested
sub-clause tag is [func.bind.isplace]:
</p>
<h3><ins>20.8.9.1.?  Class template <tt>is_placeholder</tt>  [func.bind.isplace]</ins></h3> 
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>namespace std {
  template&lt;class T&gt; struct is_placeholder; <i>// see below</i>
}</ins>
</pre><blockquote><p>
<ins>-?- <tt>is_placeholder</tt> can be used to detect the standard placeholders <tt>_1</tt>, <tt>_2</tt>, and so on. 
<tt>bind</tt> uses <tt>is_placeholder</tt> to detect placeholders.</ins>
<p/>
<ins>-?- Instantiations of the <tt>is_placeholder</tt> template shall meet the UnaryTypeTrait requirements ([meta.rqmts]). 
The implementation shall provide a definition that has a BaseCharacteristic of <tt>integral_constant&lt;int, J&gt;</tt> 
if <tt>T</tt> is the type of <tt>std::placeholders::_J</tt>, otherwise it shall have a BaseCharacteristic of 
<tt>integral_constant&lt;int, 0&gt;</tt>. A program may specialize this template for a user-defined type <tt>T</tt> 
to have a BaseCharacteristic of <tt>integral_constant&lt;int, <i>N</i>&gt;</tt> with <tt><i>N</i> &gt; 0</tt> 
to indicate that <tt>T</tt> should be treated as a placeholder type.</ins>
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2011"></a>2011. Unexpected output required of strings</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 21.4.8.9 [string.io] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Review">Review</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> James Kanze <b>Opened:</b> 2010-07-23 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#string.io">issues</a> in [string.io].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Review">Review</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
What should the following code output? 
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;string&gt;
#include &lt;iostream&gt;
#include &lt;iomanip&gt;

int main() 
{ 
   std::string test("0X1Y2Z"); 
   std::cout.fill('*'); 
   std::cout.setf(std::ios::internal, std::ios::adjustfield); 
   std::cout &lt;&lt; std::setw(8) &lt;&lt; test &lt;&lt; std::endl; 
} 
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
I would expect "<tt>**0X1Y2Z</tt>", and this is what the compilers I have access
to (VC++, g++ and Sun CC) do.  But according to the standard, it should be
"<tt>0X**1Y2Z</tt>":
</p>

<p>
21.4.8.9 [string.io]&#47;5: 
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
  basic_ostream&lt;charT, traits&gt;&amp;
    operator&lt;&lt;(basic_ostream&lt;charT, traits&gt;&amp; os, const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; str);
</pre><blockquote><p>
<i>Effects:</i> Behaves as a formatted output function (27.7.3.6.1 [ostream.formatted.reqmts]). After constructing 
a <tt>sentry</tt> object, if this object returns <tt>true</tt> when converted to a value of type <tt>bool</tt>, 
determines padding as described in 22.4.2.2.2 [facet.num.put.virtuals], then inserts the resulting sequence of
characters seq as if by calling <tt>os.rdbuf()-&gt;sputn(seq, n)</tt>, where <tt>n</tt> is the larger of 
<tt>os.width()</tt> and <tt>str.size()</tt>; then calls <tt>os.width(0)</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>
22.4.2.2.2 [facet.num.put.virtuals]&#47;5: 
</p>

<blockquote>
<p>
[&hellip;] 
</p>

<p>
<b>Stage 3:</b> A local variable is initialized as
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
fmtflags adjustfield= (flags &amp; (ios_base::adjustfield));
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
The location of any padding is determined according to Table 88. 
</p>

<p>
If <tt>str.width()</tt> is nonzero and the number of <tt>charT</tt>'s in the
sequence after stage 2 is less than <tt>str.width()</tt>, then enough fill
characters are added to the sequence at the position indicated for padding to
bring the length of the sequence to <tt>str.width()</tt>. <tt>str.width(0)</tt>
is called.
</p>

<table border="1">
<caption>Table 88 &mdash; Fill padding</caption>
<tr>
<th>State</th>
<th>Location</th>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>adjustfield == ios_base::left</tt></td>
<td>pad after</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>adjustfield == ios_base::right</tt></td>
<td>pad before</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>adjustfield == internal</tt> and a sign occurs in the representation</td>
<td>pad after the sign</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>adjustfield == internal</tt> and representation after stage 1 began with 0x or 0X</td>
<td>pad after x or X</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><i>otherwise</i></td>
<td>pad before</td>
</tr>
</table>

</blockquote>

<p>
Although it's not 100% clear what "the sequence after stage 2" should mean here,
when there is no stage 2, the only reasonable assumption is that it is the
contents of the string being output.  In the above code, the string being output
is "<tt>0X1Y2Z</tt>", which starts with "<tt>0X</tt>", so the padding should be
inserted "after x or X", and not before the string. I believe that this is a
defect in the standard, and not in the three compilers I tried.
</p>

<p><i>[
2010 Batavia (post meeting session)
]</i></p>

<p>
Consensus that all known implementations are consistent, and disagree with the
standard. Preference is to fix the standard before implementations start trying
to conform to the current spec, as the current implementations have the preferred
form. Howard volunteered to drught for Madrid, move to Open.
</p>

<p><i>[2011-03-24 Madrid meeting]</i></p>


<p>
Daniel Kr&uuml;gler volunteered to provide wording, interacting with Dietmar and
Bill. 
</p>

<p><i>[2011-06-24 Daniel comments and provides wording]</i></p>


<p>
The same problem applies to the output provided by <tt>const char*</tt> and similar
character sequences as of 27.7.3.6.4 [ostream.inserters.character] p. 5. and even for
single character output (!) as described in 27.7.3.6.4 [ostream.inserters.character] p. 1,
just consider the character value '-' where '-' is the sign character. In this case
Table 91 &mdash; "Fill padding" requires to pad after the sign, i.e. the output
for the program
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;iostream&gt;
#include &lt;iomanip&gt;

int main() 
{ 
   char c = '-'; 
   std::cout.fill('*'); 
   std::cout.setf(std::ios::internal, std::ios::adjustfield); 
   std::cout &lt;&lt; std::setw(2) &lt;&lt; c &lt;&lt; std::endl; 
} 
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
According to the current wording this program should output "<tt>-*</tt>", but
all tested implementations output "<tt>*-</tt>" instead.

<p/>
I suggest to replace the reference to 22.4.2.2.2 [facet.num.put.virtuals] in all three places. 
It is not very complicated to describe the padding rules for simple character sequences "inline". 
A similar approach is used as for the <tt>money_put</tt> functions.
</p>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington
]</i></p>


<p>
Move to Review, the resolution seems correct but it would be nice if some factoring of the common words were proposed.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>
The new wording refers to the FDIS numbering.
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Change 21.4.8.9 [string.io]&#47;5 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
  basic_ostream&lt;charT, traits&gt;&amp;
    operator&lt;&lt;(basic_ostream&lt;charT, traits&gt;&amp; os,
               const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; str);
</pre><blockquote><p>
-5- <i>Effects</i>: Behaves as a formatted output function ([ostream.formatted.reqmts]). After constructing a sentry object,
if this object returns <tt>true</tt> when converted to a value of type <tt>bool</tt>, determines padding as <del>described
in [facet.num.put.virtuals],</del><ins>follows: A <tt>charT</tt> character sequence is produced, initially consisting of 
the elements defined by the range <tt>[str.begin(), str.end())</tt>. If <tt>str.size()</tt> is less than <tt>os.width()</tt>, 
then enough copies of <tt>os.fill()</tt> are added to this sequence as necessary to pad to a width of <tt>os.width()</tt> 
characters. If <tt>(os.flags() &amp; ios_base::adjustfield) == ios_base::left</tt> is <tt>true</tt>, the fill characters 
are placed after the character sequence; otherwise, they are placed before the character sequence. T</ins><del>t</del>hen 
inserts the resulting sequence of characters <tt>seq</tt> as if by calling <tt>os.rdbuf()-&gt;sputn(seq, n)</tt>, where 
<tt>n</tt> is the larger of <tt>os.width()</tt> and <tt>str.size()</tt>; then calls <tt>os.width(0)</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 27.7.3.6.4 [ostream.inserters.character]&#47;1 as indicated (An additional editorial
fix is suggested for the first prototype declaration):</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class charT, class traits&gt;
  basic_ostream&lt;charT,traits&gt;&amp; operator&lt;&lt;(basic_ostream&lt;charT,traits&gt;&amp; out,
                                          charT c<del>}</del><ins>)</ins>;
template&lt;class charT, class traits&gt;
  basic_ostream&lt;charT,traits&gt;&amp; operator&lt;&lt;(basic_ostream&lt;charT,traits&gt;&amp; out,
                                          char c);
<i>// specialization</i>
template&lt;class traits&gt;
  basic_ostream&lt;char,traits&gt;&amp; operator&lt;&lt;(basic_ostream&lt;char,traits&gt;&amp; out,
                                         char c);
<i>// signed and unsigned</i>
template&lt;class traits&gt;
  basic_ostream&lt;char,traits&gt;&amp; operator&lt;&lt;(basic_ostream&lt;char,traits&gt;&amp; out,
                                         signed char c);
template&lt;class traits&gt;
  basic_ostream&lt;char,traits&gt;&amp; operator&lt;&lt;(basic_ostream&lt;char,traits&gt;&amp; out,
                                         unsigned char c);
</pre><blockquote><p>
-1- <i>Effects</i>: Behaves like a formatted inserter (as described in [ostream.formatted.reqmts]) of <tt>out</tt>. 
After a sentry object is constructed it inserts characters. In case <tt>c</tt> has type <tt>char</tt> and the 
character type of the stream is not <tt>char</tt>, then the character to be inserted is <tt>out.widen(c)</tt>; 
otherwise the character is <tt>c</tt>. Padding is determined as <del>described in [facet.num.put.virtuals]</del><ins>follows: 
A character sequence is produced, initially consisting of the insertion character. If <tt>out.width()</tt> is greater
than one, then enough copies of <tt>out.fill()</tt> are added to this sequence as necessary to pad to a width of 
<tt>out.width()</tt> characters. If <tt>(out.flags() &amp; ios_base::adjustfield) == ios_base::left</tt> is <tt>true</tt>, 
the fill characters are placed after the insertion character; otherwise, they are placed before the insertion 
character</ins>. <del><tt>width(0)</tt> is called.</del> The insertion character and any required padding are 
inserted into <tt>out</tt><ins>; then calls <tt>os.width(0)</tt></ins>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 27.7.3.6.4 [ostream.inserters.character]&#47;5 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class charT, class traits&gt;
  basic_ostream&lt;charT,traits&gt;&amp; operator&lt;&lt;(basic_ostream&lt;charT,traits&gt;&amp; out,
                                          const charT* s);
template&lt;class charT, class traits&gt;
  basic_ostream&lt;charT,traits&gt;&amp; operator&lt;&lt;(basic_ostream&lt;charT,traits&gt;&amp; out,
                                          const char* s);
template&lt;class traits&gt;
  basic_ostream&lt;char,traits&gt;&amp; operator&lt;&lt;(basic_ostream&lt;char,traits&gt;&amp; out,
                                         const char* s);
template&lt;class traits&gt;
  basic_ostream&lt;char,traits&gt;&amp; operator&lt;&lt;(basic_ostream&lt;char,traits&gt;&amp; out,
                                         const signed char* s);
template&lt;class traits&gt;
  basic_ostream&lt;char,traits&gt;&amp; operator&lt;&lt;(basic_ostream&lt;char,traits&gt;&amp; out,
                                         const unsigned char* s);
</pre><blockquote><p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-5- Padding is determined as <del>described in [facet.num.put.virtuals]. The <tt>n</tt> characters starting at <tt>s</tt> 
are widened using <tt>out.widen</tt> ([basic.ios.members])</del><ins>follows: A character sequence is produced, initially 
consisting of the elements defined by the <tt>n</tt> characters starting at <tt>s</tt> widened using 
<tt>out.widen</tt> ([basic.ios.members]). If <tt>n</tt> is less than <tt>out.width()</tt>, then enough copies of 
<tt>out.fill()</tt> are added to this sequence as necessary to pad to a width of <tt>out.width()</tt> characters. 
If <tt>(out.flags() &amp; ios_base::adjustfield) == ios_base::left</tt> is <tt>true</tt>, the fill characters are 
placed after the character sequence; otherwise, they are placed before the character sequence</ins>. The 
widened characters and any required padding are inserted into <tt>out</tt>. Calls <tt>width(0)</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2012"></a>2012. Associative maps should insert <tt>pair</tt>, not <tt>tuple</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.4 [associative] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Paolo Carlini <b>Opened:</b> 2010-10-29 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#associative">issues</a> in [associative].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
I'm seeing something strange in the paragraphs 23.4.4.4 [map.modifiers] and 23.4.5.3 [multimap.modifiers]:
they both talk about <tt>tuple&lt;const key_type, mapped_type&gt;</tt> but I think they
should be talking about <tt>pair&lt;const key_type, mapped_type&gt;</tt> because, among
other reasons, a <tt>tuple</tt> is not convertible to a <tt>pair</tt>. If I replace <tt>tuple</tt>
with <tt>pair</tt> everything makes sense to me.
<p/>
The proposed resolution is obvious. 
</p>

<p><i>[
2010-11-07 Daniel comments
]</i></p>


<p>
This is by far not the only necessary fix within both sub-clauses. For details see the 2010-10-29 comment in 
<a href="lwg-active.html#2005">2005</a>.
</p>

<p><i>[2011-03-24 Madrid meeting]</i></p>


<p>
Paolo: Don't think we can do it now.
<p/>
Daniel K: Agrees. 
</p>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington
]</i></p>


<p>
Consensus that this issue will be resolved by <a href="lwg-active.html#2005">2005</a>, but held open until that issue is resolved.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>
Apply the resolution proposed by the 2010-10-29 comment in <a href="lwg-active.html#2005">2005</a>.
</p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2013"></a>2013. Do library implementers have the freedom to add <tt>constexpr</tt>?</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 17.6.5.6 [constexpr.functions] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Matt Austern <b>Opened:</b> 2010-11-12 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Ready">Ready</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>Suppose that a particular function is not tagged as constexpr in the standard,
but that, in some particular implementation, it is possible to write it within
the constexpr constraints. If an implementer tags such a function as constexpr,
is that a violation of the standard or is it a conforming extension?</p>

<p>There are two questions to consider. First, is this allowed under the
as-if rule? Second, if it does not fall under as-if, is there
(and should there be) any special license granted to implementers
to do this anyway, sort of the way we allow elision of copy constructors
even though it is detectable by users?</p>

<p>I believe that this does not fall under "as-if", so implementers
probably don't have that freedom today. I suggest changing the WP
to grant it. Even if we decide otherwise, however, I suggest that
we make it explicit.</p>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington
]</i></p>


<p>
General surprise this was not already in 'Ready' status, and so moved.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p><i>In 17.6.4.6 [constexpr.functions], change paragraph 1 to:</i></p>

<blockquote><p>
<ins>This standard explicitly requires that certain standard library functions
are <tt>constexpr</tt> [dcl.constexpr].
Additionally, an implementation may declare any function to be <tt>constexpr</tt>
if that function's definition satisfies the necessary constraints.</ins>
Within any header that provides any non-defining declarations of <tt>constexpr</tt>
functions or constructors an implementation shall provide corresponding definitions. 
</p></blockquote>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2015"></a>2015. Incorrect pre-conditions for some type traits</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.9.4 [meta.unary] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Nikolay Ivchenkov <b>Opened:</b> 2010-11-08 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#meta.unary">issues</a> in [meta.unary].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Ready">Ready</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>According to N3126&nbsp;&#x2011;&nbsp;3.9/9,</p>

<p>&quot;Scalar types, trivial class types (Clause 9), arrays of such types
and <i>cv</i>&#x2011;qualified versions of these types (3.9.3) are collectively
called <i>trivial types</i>.&quot;</p>

<p>Thus, an array (possibly of unknown bound) can be trivial type, non&#x2011;trivial type, 
or an array type whose triviality cannot be determined because its element type is incomplete.</p>

<p>According to N3126&nbsp;&#x2011;&nbsp;Table 45, preconditions for <tt>std::is_trivial</tt> are
defined as follows:</p>

<p>&quot;<tt>T</tt> shall be a complete type, (possibly <i>cv</i>-qualified) <tt>void</tt>, 
or an array of unknown bound&quot;</p>

<p>It seems that &quot;an array of unknown bound&quot; should be changed to &quot;an
array of unknown bound of a complete element type&quot;. Preconditions for
some other templates (e.g., <tt>std::is_trivially_copyable</tt>,
<tt>std::is_standard_layout</tt>, <tt>std::is_pod</tt>, and <tt>std::is_literal_type</tt>) should
be changed similarly.</p>

<p>On the other hand, some preconditions look too restrictive. For
example, <tt>std::is_empty</tt> and <tt>std::is_polymorphic</tt> might accept any
incomplete non&#x2011;class type.</p>

<p><i>[2011-02-18: Daniel provides wording proposal]</i></p>


<p>
While reviewing the individual preconditions I could find three different groups of
either too weakening or too strengthening constraints:
</p>
<ol>
<li><pre>is_empty/is_polymorphic/is_abstract/has_virtual_destructor:</pre>

<p>These traits can only apply for <em>non&#x2011;union class types</em>, otherwise the result must
always be false</p>
</li>

<li><pre>is_base_of:</pre>

<p>Similar to the previous bullet, but the current wording comes already near to that ideal,
it only misses to add the <em>non&#x2011;union</em> aspect.</p>
</li>

<li><pre>is_trivial/is_trivially_copyable/is_standard_layout/is_pod/is_literal_type:</pre>

<p>These traits always require that <tt>std::remove_all_extents&lt;T&gt;::type</tt> to be <tt><i>cv</i> void</tt> or 
a complete type.</p>
</li>
</ol>

<p><i>[Bloomington, 2011]</i></p>

<p>
Move to Ready
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>
Modify the pre-conditions of the following type traits in 20.9.4.3 [meta.unary.prop], Table 48 &mdash; Type property predicates:
</p>

<blockquote>
<table border="1">
<caption>Table 48 &mdash; Type property predicates</caption>
<tr>
<th>Template</th>
<th>Condition</th>
<th>Preconditions</th>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="3" style="text-align:center;">...</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>template &lt;class T&gt;<br/>
struct is_trivial;</tt></td>
<td><tt>T</tt> is a trivial type (3.9)</td>
<td><tt><ins>remove_all_extents&lt;</ins>T<ins>&gt;::type</ins></tt><br/>
shall be a complete type<del>,</del><ins> or</ins> (possibly<br/>
cv-qualified) <tt>void</tt><del>, or an array of<br/>
unknown bound</del>.</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>template &lt;class T&gt;<br/>
struct is_trivially_copyable;</tt></td>
<td><tt>T</tt> is a trivially copyable<br/>
type (3.9)</td>
<td><tt><ins>remove_all_extents&lt;</ins>T<ins>&gt;::type</ins></tt><br/>
shall be a complete type<del>,</del><ins> or</ins> (possibly<br/>
cv-qualified) <tt>void</tt><del>, or an array of<br/>
unknown bound</del>.</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>template &lt;class T&gt;<br/>
struct is_standard_layout;</tt></td>
<td><tt>T</tt> is a standard-layout<br/>
type (3.9)</td>
<td><tt><ins>remove_all_extents&lt;</ins>T<ins>&gt;::type</ins></tt><br/>
shall be a complete type<del>,</del><ins> or</ins> (possibly<br/>
cv-qualified) <tt>void</tt><del>, or an array of<br/>
unknown bound</del>.</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>template &lt;class T&gt;<br/>
struct is_pod;</tt></td>
<td><tt>T</tt> is a POD type (3.9)</td>
<td><tt><ins>remove_all_extents&lt;</ins>T<ins>&gt;::type</ins></tt><br/>
shall be a complete type<del>,</del><ins> or</ins> (possibly<br/>
cv-qualified) <tt>void</tt><del>, or an array of<br/>
unknown bound</del>.</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>template &lt;class T&gt;<br/>
struct is_literal_type;</tt></td>
<td><tt>T</tt> is a literal type (3.9)</td>
<td><tt><ins>remove_all_extents&lt;</ins>T<ins>&gt;::type</ins></tt><br/>
shall be a complete type<del>,</del><ins> or</ins> (possibly<br/>
cv-qualified) <tt>void</tt><del>, or an array of<br/>
unknown bound</del>.</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>template &lt;class T&gt;<br/>
struct is_empty;</tt></td>
<td><tt>T</tt> is a class type, but not a<br/>
union type, with no<br/>
non-static data members<br/>
other than bit-fields of<br/>
length 0, no virtual<br/>
member functions, no<br/>
virtual base classes, and<br/>
no base class B for which<br/>
<tt>is_empty&lt;B&gt;::value</tt> is<br/>
false.</td>
<td><del><tt>T</tt> shall be a complete type,<br/>
(possibly cv-qualified) <tt>void</tt>, or<br/>
an array of unknown bound</del><ins>If <tt>T</tt><br/>
is a non&#x2011;union class type, <tt>T</tt><br/>
shall be a complete type</ins>.</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>template &lt;class T&gt;<br/>
struct is_polymorphic;</tt></td>
<td><tt>T</tt> is a polymorphic<br/>
class (10.3)</td>
<td><del><tt>T</tt> shall be a complete type,<br/>
type, (possibly cv-qualified) <tt>void</tt>, or<br/>
an array of unknown bound</del><ins>If <tt>T</tt><br/>
is a non&#x2011;union class type, <tt>T</tt><br/>
shall be a complete type</ins>.</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>template &lt;class T&gt;<br/>
struct is_abstract;</tt></td>
<td><tt>T</tt> is an abstract<br/>
class (10.4)</td>
<td><del><tt>T</tt> shall be a complete type,<br/>
type, (possibly cv-qualified) <tt>void</tt>, or<br/>
an array of unknown bound</del><ins>If <tt>T</tt><br/>
is a non&#x2011;union class type, <tt>T</tt><br/>
shall be a complete type</ins>.</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="3" style="text-align:center;">...</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>template &lt;class T&gt;<br/>
struct has_virtual_destructor;</tt></td>
<td><tt>T</tt> has a virtual<br/>
destructor (12.4)</td>
<td><del><tt>T</tt> shall be a complete type,<br/>
(possibly cv-qualified) <tt>void</tt>, or<br/>
an array of unknown bound</del><ins>If <tt>T</tt><br/>
is a non&#x2011;union class type, <tt>T</tt><br/>
shall be a complete type</ins>.</td>
</tr>

</table>
</blockquote>

</li>

<li>
<p>
Modify the pre-conditions of the following type traits in 20.9.6 [meta.rel], Table 50 &mdash; Type relationship predicates:
</p>

<blockquote>
<table border="1">
<caption>Table 50 &mdash; Type relationship predicates</caption>
<tr>
<th>Template</th>
<th>Condition</th>
<th>Comments</th>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="3" style="text-align:center;">...</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>template &lt;class Base, class<br/>
Derived&gt;<br/>
struct is_base_of;</tt></td>
<td><tt>Base</tt> is a base class of<br/>
<tt>Derived</tt> (10) without<br/>
regard to cv-qualifiers<br/>
or <tt>Base</tt> and <tt>Derived</tt><br/>
are not unions and<br/>
name the same class<br/>
type without regard to<br/>
cv-qualifiers</td>
<td>If <tt>Base</tt> and <tt>Derived</tt> are<br/>
<ins>non&#x2011;union</ins> class types<br/>
and are different types<br/>
(ignoring possible cv-qualifiers)<br/>
then <tt>Derived</tt> shall be a complete<br/>
type. [ <i>Note</i>: Base classes that<br/>
are private, protected, or<br/>
ambigious are, nonetheless, base<br/>
classes. &mdash; <i>end note</i> ]</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="3" style="text-align:center;">...</td>
</tr>

</table>
</blockquote>
</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2016"></a>2016. <tt>Allocators</tt> must be no-throw <i>swappable</i></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 17.6.3.5 [allocator.requirements] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2010-11-17 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#allocator.requirements">active issues</a> in [allocator.requirements].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#allocator.requirements">issues</a> in [allocator.requirements].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
During the Batavia meeting it turned out that there is a definition
hole for types satisfying the <tt>Allocators</tt> requirements: The problem
became obvious when it was discussed whether all <tt>swap</tt> functions 
of <tt>Containers</tt> with internal data handles can be safely tagged
with <tt>noexcept</tt> or not. While it is correct that the implicit
<tt>swap</tt> function of an allocator is required to be a no-throw
operation (because move/copy-constructors and assignment operators are
required to be no-throw functions), there are no such requirements
for specialized <tt>swap</tt> overloads for a particular allocator.
<p/>
But this requirement is essential because the <tt>Containers</tt> are
required to support <i>swappable</i> <tt>Allocators</tt>, when the value
<tt>allocator_traits&lt;&gt;::propagate_on_container_swap</tt> evaluates
to <tt>true</tt>.
</p>
<p><i>[2011-02-10 Alberto, Daniel, and Pablo collaborated on the proposed wording]</i></p>

<p>
The proposed resolution (based on N3225) attempts to solve the following problems:
</p>
<ol>
<li>Table 44 &mdash; Allocator requirements, expression rows 
<tt>X::propagate_on_container_copy_assignment</tt>, <tt>X::propagate_on_container_move_assignment</tt>, and
<tt>X::propagate_on_container_swap</tt> only describe operations, but no requirements. In fact, if and only
if these compile-time predicates evaluate to <tt>true</tt>, the <em>additional</em> requirements
<tt>CopyAssignable</tt>,  no-throw <tt>MoveAssignable</tt>, and no-throw lvalue <tt>Swappable</tt>, 
respectively, are imposed on the allocator types.</li>
<li>23.2.1 [container.requirements.general] p. 9 misses to refer to the correct swap conditions: The current wording does not relate to
17.6.3.2 [swappable.requirements] as it should and omits to mention that lvalues shall be swapped. Additional there is one
situation described twice in p. 8 and p. 9 (undefined behaviour unless <tt>a.get_allocator() == b.get_allocator()</tt>
or <tt>allocator_traits&lt;allocator_type&gt;::propagate_on_container_swap::value == true</tt>), which should be cleaned up.</li>
</ol>

<p><i>[2011-04-08 Pablo comments]</i></p>

<p>
I'm implementing a version of list now and I actually do find it impossible to write an exception-safe assignment 
operator unless I can assume that allocator assignment does not throw.  (The problem is that I use a sentinel node 
and I need to allocate a new sentinel using the new allocator without destroying the old one -- then swap the 
allocator and sentinel pointer in atomically, without risk of an exception leaving one inconsistent with the other.
<p/>
Please update the proposed resolution to add the nothrow requirement to copy-assignment.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>
Adapt the following three rows from Table 44 &mdash; Allocator requirements:
</p>

<blockquote>
<table border="1">
<caption>Table 44 &mdash; Allocator requirements</caption>
<tr>
<th>
Expression
</th>

<th>
Return type
</th>

<th>
Assertion/note<br/>pre-/post-condition
</th>

<th>
Default
</th>

</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>X::propagate_on_container_copy_assignment</tt></td>

<td>Identical to or derived from <tt>true_type</tt><br/>
or <tt>false_type</tt></td>

<td><tt>true_type</tt> only if an allocator of type <tt>X</tt> should be copied<br/> 
when the client container is copy-assigned. <ins>See Note B, below.</ins></td>

<td><tt>false_type</tt></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>X::propagate_on_container_move_assignment</tt></td>

<td>Identical to or derived from <tt>true_type</tt><br/>
or <tt>false_type</tt></td>

<td><tt>true_type</tt> only if an allocator of type <tt>X</tt> should be moved<br/>
when the client container is move-assigned. <ins>See Note B, below.</ins></td>

<td><tt>false_type</tt></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>X::propagate_on_container_swap</tt></td>

<td>Identical to or derived from <tt>true_type</tt><br/>
or <tt>false_type</tt></td>

<td><tt>true_type</tt> only if an allocator of type <tt>X</tt> should be swapped<br/>
when the client container is swapped. <ins>See Note B, below.</ins></td>

<td><tt>false_type</tt></td>
</tr>

</table>
</blockquote>


</li>

<li>
<p>Following 17.6.3.5 [allocator.requirements] p. 3 insert a new normative paragraph:</p>

<blockquote><p>
<ins>Note B: If <tt>X::propagate_on_container_copy_assignment::value</tt> is true, <tt>X</tt> shall 
satisfy the <tt>CopyAssignable</tt> requirements (Table 39  [copyassignable]) and the copy 
operation shall not throw exceptions. If <tt>X::propagate_on_container_move_assignment::value</tt> is 
true, <tt>X</tt> shall satisfy the <tt>MoveAssignable</tt> requirements (Table 38  [moveassignable]) 
and the move operation shall not throw exceptions. If <tt>X::propagate_on_container_swap::value</tt> is 
true, lvalues of <tt>X</tt> shall be swappable (17.6.3.2 [swappable.requirements]) and the <tt>swap</tt> 
operation shall not throw exceptions.</ins>
</p></blockquote>
</li>

<li>
<p>Modify 23.2.1 [container.requirements.general] p. 8 and p. 9 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><p>
8 - [..] The allocator may be replaced only via assignment or <tt>swap()</tt>. Allocator replacement is 
performed by copy assignment, move assignment, or swapping of the allocator only if 
<tt>allocator_traits&lt;allocator_type&gt;::propagate_on_container_copy_assignment::value</tt>,
<tt>allocator_traits&lt;allocator_type&gt;::propagate_on_container_move_assignment::value</tt>, 
or <tt>allocator_traits&lt;allocator_type&gt;::propagate_on_container_swap::value</tt> is true 
within the implementation of the corresponding container operation. <del>The behavior of a call to 
a container's <tt>swap</tt> function is undefined unless the objects being swapped have allocators that compare 
equal or <tt>allocator_traits&lt;allocator_type&gt;::propagate_on_container_swap::value</tt> is true</del>. In all 
container types defined in this Clause, the member <tt>get_allocator()</tt> returns a copy of the allocator 
used to construct the container or, if that allocator has been replaced, a copy of the most recent replacement.
<p/>
9 - The expression <tt>a.swap(b)</tt>, for containers <tt>a</tt> and <tt>b</tt> of a standard container type 
other than <tt>array</tt>, shall exchange the values of <tt>a</tt> and <tt>b</tt> without invoking any move, 
copy, or swap operations on the individual container elements. <ins>Lvalues of a</ins><del>A</del>ny <tt>Compare</tt>, 
<tt>Pred</tt>, or <tt>Hash</tt> object<del>s</del> belonging to <tt>a</tt> and <tt>b</tt> shall be swappable 
and shall be exchanged by <del>unqualified calls to non-member</del> <ins>calling</ins> <tt>swap</tt> 
<ins>as described in 17.6.3.2 [swappable.requirements]</ins>. If <tt>allocator_traits&lt;allocator_type&gt;::propagate_on_container_swap::value</tt> 
is <tt>true</tt>, then <ins>lvalues of <tt>allocator_type</tt> shall be swappable and</ins> the allocators of <tt>a</tt> and 
<tt>b</tt> shall also be exchanged using <ins>a</ins> <del>an unqualified call to non-member</del> 
<tt>swap</tt> <ins>call</ins> <ins>as described in 17.6.3.2 [swappable.requirements]</ins>. Otherwise, 
<del>they</del><ins>the allocators</ins> shall not be swapped, and the behavior is undefined unless
<tt>a.get_allocator() == b.get_allocator()</tt>. Every iterator referring to an element in one container before
the swap shall refer to the same element in the other container after the swap. It is unspecified whether an
iterator with value <tt>a.end()</tt> before the swap will have value <tt>b.end()</tt> after the swap.
</p></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2018"></a>2018. <tt>regex_traits::isctype</tt> Returns clause is wrong</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 28.7 [re.traits] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2010-11-16 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#re.traits">issues</a> in [re.traits].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>28.7 [re.traits] p. 12 says:</p>

<blockquote><p>
returns true if <tt>f</tt> bitwise or&#39;ed with the result of calling
<tt>lookup_classname</tt> with an iterator pair that designates the character
sequence &quot;w&quot; is not equal to <tt>0</tt> and <tt>c == '_'</tt>
</p></blockquote>

<p>
If the bitmask value corresponding to &quot;w&quot; has a non-zero value (which
it must do) then the bitwise or with any value is also non-zero, and
so <tt>isctype('_', f)</tt> returns true for any <tt>f</tt>. Obviously this is wrong,
since <tt>'_'</tt> is not in every <tt>ctype</tt> category.
</p>

<p>
There&#39;s a similar problem with the following phrases discussing the
&quot;blank&quot; char class.
</p>

<p><i>[2011-05-06: Jonathan Wakely comments and provides suggested wording]</i></p>


<p>
DR <a href="lwg-defects.html#2019">2019</a> added <tt>isblank</tt> support to <tt>&lt;locale&gt;</tt> which simplifies the
definition of <tt>regex_traits::isctype</tt> by removing the special case for the "blank" class.
<p/>
My suggestion for 2018 is to add a new table replacing the lists of
recognized names in the Remarks clause of <tt>regex_traits::lookup_classname</tt>. 
I then refer to that table in the Returns clause of <tt>regex_traits::isctype</tt> 
to expand on the "in an unspecified manner" wording which is too vague. The conversion 
can now be described using the "is set" term defined by 17.5.2.1.3 [bitmask.types] and
the new table to convey the intented relationship between e.g.
[[:digit:]] and <tt>ctype_base::digit</tt>, which is not actually stated in the
FDIS.
<p/>
The effects of <tt>isctype</tt> can then most easily be described in code,
given an "exposition only" function prototype to do the not-quite-so-unspecified conversion 
from <tt>char_class_type</tt> to <tt>ctype_base::mask</tt>.
<p/>
The core of LWG 2018 is the "bitwise or'ed" wording which gives the
wrong result, always evaluating to true for all values of <tt>f</tt>. That is
replaced by the condition <tt>(f&amp;x) == x</tt> where <tt>x</tt> is the result of calling
<tt>lookup_classname</tt> with "w".  I believe that's necessary, because the
"w" class could be implemented by an internal "underscore" class i.e.
<tt>x = _Alnum|_Underscore</tt> in which case <tt>(f&amp;x) != 0</tt> would give the wrong
result when <tt>f==_Alnum</tt>.
<p/>
The proposed resolution also makes use of <tt>ctype::widen</tt> which addresses
the problem that the current wording only talks about "w" and '_' which assumes 
<tt>charT</tt> is char.  There's still room for improvement here:
the regex grammar in 28.13 [re.grammar] says that the class names in the
table should always be recognized, implying that e.g. U"digit" should
be recognized by <tt>regex_traits&lt;char32_t&gt;</tt>, but the specification of
<tt>regex_traits::lookup_classname</tt> doesn't cover that, only mentioning
<tt>char</tt> and <tt>wchar_t</tt>.  Maybe the table should not distinguish narrow and
wide strings, but should just have one column and add wording to say
that <tt>regex_traits</tt> widens the name as if by using <tt>use_facet&lt;ctype&lt;charT&gt;&gt;::widen()</tt>.
<p/>
Another possible improvement would be to allow additional
implementation-defined extensions in <tt>isctype</tt>. An implementation is
allowed to support additional class names in <tt>lookup_classname</tt>, e.g.
[[:octdigit:]] for [0-7] or [[:bindigit:]] for [01], but the current
definition of isctype provides no way to use them unless <tt>ctype_base::mask</tt> 
also supports them.
</p>

<p><i>[2011-05-10: Alberto and Daniel perform minor fixes in the P&#47;R]</i></p>


<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington
]</i></p>


<p>
Consensus that this looks to be a correct solution, and the presentation as a table is a big improvement.
</p>

<p>
Concern that the middle section wording is a little muddled and confusing, Stefanus volunteered to reword.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Modify 28.7 [re.traits] p. 10 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class ForwardIterator&gt;
  char_class_type lookup_classname(
    ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last, bool icase = false) const;
</pre><blockquote><p>
-9- <i>Returns</i>: an unspecified value that represents the character classification named by the character
sequence designated by the iterator range [<tt>first</tt>,<tt>last</tt>). If the parameter <tt>icase</tt> is true then the
returned mask identifies the character classification without regard to the case of the characters being
matched, otherwise it does honor the case of the characters being matched.(footnote 335) The value returned shall
be independent of the case of the characters in the character sequence. If the name is not recognized
then returns a value that compares equal to 0.
<p/>
-10- <i>Remarks</i>: For <tt>regex_traits&lt;char&gt;</tt>, at least the <del>names "d", "w", "s", "alnum", "alpha", "blank",
"cntrl", "digit", "graph", "lower", "print", "punct", "space", "upper" and "xdigit"</del><ins>narrow character
names in Table X</ins> shall be recognized. For <tt>regex_traits&lt;wchar_t&gt;</tt>, at least the <del>names L"d", L"w", 
L"s", L"alnum", L"alpha", L"blank", L"cntrl", L"digit", L"graph", L"lower", L"print", L"punct", L"space", L"upper" and 
L"xdigit"</del><ins>wide character names in Table X</ins> shall be recognized.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Modify 28.7 [re.traits] p. 12 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
bool isctype(charT c, char_class_type f) const;
</pre><blockquote><p>
-11- <i>Effects</i>: Determines if the character <tt>c</tt> is a member of the character classification represented by <tt>f</tt>.
<p/>
-12- <i>Returns</i>: Converts <tt>f</tt> into a value <tt>m</tt> of type <tt>std::ctype_base::mask</tt> in an unspecified manner, <del>and
returns true if <tt>use_facet&lt;ctype&lt;charT&gt; &gt;(getloc()).is(m, c)</tt> is true. Otherwise returns true
if <tt>f</tt> bitwise or'ed with the result of calling <tt>lookup_classname</tt> with an iterator pair that designates
the character sequence "w" is not equal to <tt>0</tt> and <tt>c == '_'</tt>, or if <tt>f</tt> bitwise or'ed with the result of
calling <tt>lookup_classname</tt> with an iterator pair that designates the character sequence "blank" is not
equal to <tt>0</tt> and <tt>c</tt> is one of an implementation-defined subset of the characters for which 
<tt>isspace(c, getloc())</tt> returns true, otherwise returns false.</del><ins>except that when <tt>f</tt> represents 
membership of a character class named in Table X, the corresponding <tt>ctype_base::mask</tt> value shall be set in <tt>m</tt>. 
Given the function prototype</ins>
</p><blockquote><pre>
<ins>template&lt;class C&gt;
   ctype_base::mask convert(typename regex_traits&lt;C&gt;::char_class_type);</ins>
</pre></blockquote>
<p><ins>the result is determined as if by</ins>
</p><blockquote><pre><ins>
ctype_base::mask m = convert&lt;charT&gt;(f);
const ctype&lt;charT&gt;&amp; ct = use_facet&lt;ctype&lt;charT&gt; &gt;(getloc());
if (ct.is(m, c))
  return true;
charT w[1] = { ct.widen('w') };
char_class_type x = lookup_classname(w, w+1);
if ((f&amp;x) == x &amp;&amp; c == ct.widen('_'))
  return true;
return false;
</ins></pre></blockquote>
<p><ins>[<i>Example</i>:</ins>
</p><blockquote><pre><ins>
regex_traits&lt;char&gt; t;
string d("d");
string u("upper");
regex_traits&lt;char&gt;::char_class_type f;
f = t.lookup_classname(d.begin(), d.end());
f |= t.lookup_classname(u.begin(), u.end());
ctype_base::mask m = convert&lt;char&gt;(f); // m == ctype_base::digit|ctype_base::upper
</ins></pre></blockquote>
<p><ins>&mdash; <i>end example</i>]</ins></p>
<p><ins>[<i>Example</i>:</ins>
</p><blockquote><pre><ins>
regex_traits&lt;char&gt; t;
string w("w");
regex_traits&lt;char&gt;::char_class_type f;
f = t.lookup_classname(w.begin(), w.end());
t.isctype('A', f); // returns true
t.isctype('_', f); // returns true
t.isctype(' ', f); // returns false
</ins></pre></blockquote>
<p><ins>&mdash; <i>end example</i>]</ins>
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>At the end of [re.traits] add a new Table X &mdash; Character class names and corresponding ctype masks:</p>

<blockquote>
<table border="1">
<caption>Table X &mdash; Character class names and corresponding ctype masks</caption>

<tr>
<th>Narrow character name</th>
<th>Wide character name</th>
<th>Corresponding <tt>ctype_base::mask</tt> value</th>
</tr>
 
<tr>
<td><tt>"alnum"</tt></td>
<td><tt>L"alnum"</tt></td>
<td><tt>ctype_base::alnum</tt></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>"alpha"</tt></td>
<td><tt>L"alpha"</tt></td>
<td><tt>ctype_base::alpha</tt></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>"blank"</tt></td>
<td><tt>L"blank"</tt></td>
<td><tt>ctype_base::blank</tt></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>"cntrl"</tt></td>
<td><tt>L"cntrl"</tt></td>
<td><tt>ctype_base::cntrl</tt></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>"digit"</tt></td>
<td><tt>L"digit"</tt></td>
<td><tt>ctype_base::digit</tt></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>"d"</tt></td>
<td><tt>L"d"</tt></td>
<td><tt>ctype_base::digit</tt></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>"graph"</tt></td>
<td><tt>L"graph"</tt></td>
<td><tt>ctype_base::graph</tt></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>"lower"</tt></td>
<td><tt>L"lower"</tt></td>
<td><tt>ctype_base::lower</tt></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>"print"</tt></td>
<td><tt>L"print"</tt></td>
<td><tt>ctype_base::print</tt></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>"punct"</tt></td>
<td><tt>L"punct"</tt></td>
<td><tt>ctype_base::punct</tt></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>"space"</tt></td>
<td><tt>L"space"</tt></td>
<td><tt>ctype_base::space</tt></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>"s"</tt></td>
<td><tt>L"s"</tt></td>
<td><tt>ctype_base::space</tt></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>"upper"</tt></td>
<td><tt>L"upper"</tt></td>
<td><tt>ctype_base::upper</tt></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>"w"</tt></td>
<td><tt>L"w"</tt></td>
<td><tt>ctype_base::alnum</tt></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>"xdigit"</tt></td>
<td><tt>L"xdigit"</tt></td>
<td><tt>ctype_base::xdigit</tt></td>
</tr>

</table>
</blockquote> 
</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2021"></a>2021. Further incorrect usages of <tt>result_of</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.8.9.1.2 [func.bind.bind], 30.6.1 [futures.overview], 30.6.8 [futures.async] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2010-12-07 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#func.bind.bind">issues</a> in [func.bind.bind].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Ready">Ready</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
Issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#2017">2017</a> points out some incorrect usages of <tt>result_of</tt> in the
declaration of the function call operator overload of <tt>reference_wrapper</tt>,
but there are more such specification defects:
</p>
<ol>
<li>According to 20.8.9.1.2 [func.bind.bind] p. 3: 
<blockquote><p>
[..] The effect of <tt>g(u1, u2, ..., uM)</tt> shall be <tt>INVOKE(fd, v1, v2, ..., vN, result_of&lt;FD cv (V1, V2, ..., VN)&gt;::type)</tt> [..]
</p></blockquote>
<p>
but <tt>fd</tt> is defined as &quot;an lvalue of type <tt>FD</tt> constructed from <tt>std::forward&lt;F&gt;(f)</tt>&quot;. This means that
the above usage must refer to <tt>result_of&lt;FD cv <strong>&amp;</strong> (V1, V2, ..., VN)&gt;</tt> instead.
</p>
</li>
<li><p>
Similar in 20.8.9.1.2 [func.bind.bind] p. 10 bullet 2 we have:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
if the value of <tt>is_bind_expression&lt;TiD&gt;::value</tt> is true, the argument is <tt>tid(std::forward&lt;Uj&gt;(uj)...)</tt>
and its type <tt>Vi</tt> is <tt>result_of&lt;TiD cv (Uj...)&gt;::type</tt>
</p></blockquote>
<p>
Again, <tt>tid</tt> is defined as &quot;lvalue of type <tt>TiD</tt> constructed from <tt>std::forward&lt;Ti&gt;(ti)</tt>&quot;. This means that
the above usage must refer to <tt>result_of&lt;TiD cv <strong>&amp;</strong> (Uj...)&gt;</tt> instead. We also have similar defect as in
<a href="lwg-defects.html#2017">2017</a> in regard to the argument types, this leads us to the further corrected form 
<tt>result_of&lt;TiD cv <strong>&amp;</strong> (Uj<strong>&amp;&amp;</strong>...)&gt;</tt>. This is not the end: Since the <tt>Vi</tt>
are similar sensitive to the argument problem, the last part must say: 
<p/>
&quot;[..] its type <tt>Vi</tt> is <tt>result_of&lt;TiD cv <strong>&amp;</strong> (Uj<strong>&amp;&amp;</strong>...)&gt;::type <strong>&amp;&amp;</strong>&quot;</tt>
<p/>
(The bound arguments <tt>Vi</tt> can never be <tt>void</tt> types, therefore we don't need 
to use the more defensive <tt>std::add_rvalue_reference</tt> type trait)
</p>
</li>
<li><p>The function template <tt>async</tt> is declared as follows (the other overload has the same problem):</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class F, class... Args&gt;
future&lt;typename result_of&lt;F(Args...)&gt;::type&gt;
async(F&amp;&amp; f, Args&amp;&amp;... args);
</pre></blockquote><p>
This usage has the some same problems as we have found in <tt>reference_wrapper</tt> (<a href="lwg-defects.html#2017">2017</a>) and more: According to
the specification in 30.6.8 [futures.async] the effective result type is that of the call of
</p><blockquote><pre>
INVOKE(decay_copy(std::forward&lt;F&gt;(f)), decay_copy(std::forward&lt;Args&gt;(args))...)
</pre></blockquote><p>
First, <tt>decay_copy</tt> potentially modifies the effective types to <tt>decay&lt;F&gt;::type</tt> and <tt>decay&lt;Args&gt;::type...</tt>.
Second, the current specification is not really clear, what the value category of callable type or the arguments shall be: According
to the second bullet of 30.6.8 [futures.async] p. 3:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
Invocation of the deferred function evaluates <tt>INVOKE(g, xyz)</tt> where <tt>g</tt> is the stored value of 
<tt>decay_copy(std::forward&lt;F&gt;(f))</tt> and <tt>xyz</tt> is the stored copy of 
<tt>decay_copy(std::forward&lt;Args&gt;(args))...</tt>.
</p></blockquote><p>
This seems to imply that lvalues are provided in contrast to the direct call expression of 30.6.8 [futures.async] p. 2
which implies rvalues instead. The specification needs to be clarified.
</p>
</li>
</ol>

<p><i>[2011-06-13: Daniel comments and refines the proposed wording changes]</i></p>


<p>The feedback obtained following message c++std-lib-30745  and follow-ups point to the intention, that 
the implied provision of lvalues due to named variables in <tt>async</tt> should be provided as rvalues to support
move-only types, but the functor type should be forwarded as lvalue in <tt>bind</tt>.
<p/>
If <tt>bind</tt> were newly invented, the value strategy could be improved, because now we have a preference of
<i>ref</i> <tt>&amp;</tt> qualified function call operator overloads. But such a change seems to be too late now.
User-code that needs to bind a callable object with an <i>ref</i> <tt>&amp;&amp;</tt> qualified function call
operator (or conversion function to function pointer) needs to use a corresponding wrapper similar to <tt>reference_wrapper</tt>
that forwards the reference as rvalue-reference instead.
<p/>
The wording has been adapted to honor these observations and to fit to FDIS numbering as well.
</p>

<p><i>[Bloomington, 2011]</i></p>

<p>
Move to Ready
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>
The suggested wording changes are against the FDIS.
</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>Change 20.8.9.1.2 [func.bind.bind] p. 3 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class F, class... BoundArgs&gt;
  <i>unspecified</i> bind(F&amp;&amp; f, BoundArgs&amp;&amp;... bound_args);
</pre><blockquote><p>
-2- <i>Requires</i>: <tt>is_constructible&lt;FD, F&gt;::value</tt> shall be true. For each <tt>Ti</tt> in <tt>BoundArgs</tt>, 
<tt>is_constructible&lt;TiD, Ti&gt;::value</tt> shall be true. <tt><i>INVOKE</i>(fd, w1, w2, ..., wN)</tt> (20.8.2) shall 
be a valid expression for some values <tt>w1</tt>, <tt>w2</tt>, ..., <tt>wN</tt>, where <tt>N == sizeof...(bound_args)</tt>.
<p/>
-3- <i>Returns</i>: A forwarding call wrapper <tt>g</tt> with a weak result type (20.8.2). The effect of 
<tt>g(u1, u2, ..., uM)</tt> shall be <tt>INVOKE(fd, <ins>std::forward&lt;V1&gt;(</ins>v1<ins>)</ins>, 
<ins>std::forward&lt;V2&gt;(</ins>v2<ins>)</ins>, ..., <ins>std::forward&lt;VN&gt;(</ins>vN<ins>)</ins>, 
result_of&lt;FD <i>cv</i> <ins>&amp;</ins> (V1, V2, ..., VN)&gt;::type)</tt>, where <i>cv</i> represents 
the <i>cv</i>-qualifiers of <tt>g</tt> and the values and types of the bound arguments <tt>v1</tt>, 
<tt>v2</tt>, ..., <tt>vN</tt> are determined as specified below. [&hellip;]
</p></blockquote></blockquote>

</li>

<li>
<p>Change 20.8.9.1.2 [func.bind.bind] p. 7 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class R, class F, class... BoundArgs&gt;
   <i>unspecified</i> bind(F&amp;&amp; f, BoundArgs&amp;&amp;... bound_args);
</pre><blockquote><p>
-6- <i>Requires</i>: <tt>is_constructible&lt;FD, F&gt;::value</tt> shall be true. For each <tt>Ti</tt> in <tt>BoundArgs</tt>, 
<tt>is_constructible&lt;TiD, Ti&gt;::value</tt> shall be true. <tt><i>INVOKE</i>(fd, w1, w2, ..., wN)</tt> shall be a valid 
expression for some values <tt>w1</tt>, <tt>w2</tt>, ..., <tt>wN</tt>, where <tt>N == sizeof...(bound_args)</tt>.
<p/>
-7- <i>Returns</i>: A forwarding call wrapper <tt>g</tt> with a nested type <tt>result_type</tt> defined as a synonym for
<tt>R</tt>. The effect of <tt>g(u1, u2, ..., uM)</tt> shall be <tt>INVOKE(fd, <ins>std::forward&lt;V1&gt;(</ins>v1<ins>)</ins>, 
<ins>std::forward&lt;V2&gt;(</ins>v2<ins>)</ins>, ..., <ins>std::forward&lt;VN&gt;(</ins>vN<ins>)</ins>, R)</tt>, where 
the values and types of the bound arguments <tt>v1</tt>, <tt>v2</tt>, ..., <tt>vN</tt> are determined as specified below. [&hellip;]
</p></blockquote></blockquote>

</li>

<li>
<p>Change 20.8.9.1.2 [func.bind.bind] p. 10 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><p>
-10- The values of the <i>bound arguments</i> <tt>v1</tt>, <tt>v2</tt>, ..., <tt>vN</tt> and their corresponding types <tt>V1</tt>, 
<tt>V2</tt>, ..., <tt>VN</tt> depend on the types <tt>TiD</tt> derived from the call to bind and the <i>cv</i>-qualifiers 
<i>cv</i> of the call wrapper <tt>g</tt> as follows:</p>
<ul>
<li>if <tt>TiD</tt> is <tt>reference_wrapper&lt;T&gt;</tt>, the argument is <tt>tid.get()</tt> and its type <tt>Vi</tt> 
is <tt>T&amp;</tt>;</li>
<li>if the value of <tt>is_bind_expression&lt;TiD&gt;::value</tt> is <tt>true</tt>, the argument is 
<tt>tid(std::forward&lt;Uj&gt;(uj)...)</tt> and its type <tt>Vi</tt> is 
<tt>result_of&lt;TiD <i>cv</i> <ins>&amp;</ins> (Uj<ins>&amp;&amp;</ins>...)&gt;::type<ins>&amp;&amp;</ins></tt>;</li>
<li>if the value <tt>j</tt> of <tt>is_placeholder&lt;TiD&gt;::value</tt> is not zero, the argument is 
<tt>std::forward&lt;Uj&gt;(uj)</tt> and its type <tt>Vi</tt> is <tt>Uj&amp;&amp;</tt>;</li>
<li>otherwise, the value is <tt>tid</tt> and its type <tt>Vi</tt> is <tt>TiD <i>cv</i> &amp;</tt>.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>

</li>

<li>
<p>
This resolution assumes that the wording of 30.6.8 [futures.async] is intended to provide rvalues
as arguments of <tt>INVOKE</tt>.
</p>

<p>
Change the function signatures in header <tt>&lt;future&gt;</tt> synopsis 30.6.1 [futures.overview] p. 1
and in 30.6.8 [futures.async] p. 1 as indicated:
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class F, class... Args&gt;
future&lt;typename result_of&lt;<ins>typename decay&lt;</ins>F<ins>&gt;::type</ins>(<ins>typename decay&lt;</ins>Args<ins>&gt;::type</ins>...)&gt;::type&gt;
async(F&amp;&amp; f, Args&amp;&amp;... args);
template &lt;class F, class... Args>
future&lt;typename result_of&lt;<ins>typename decay&lt;</ins>F<ins>&gt;::type</ins>(<ins>typename decay&lt;</ins>Args<ins>&gt;::type</ins>...)&gt;::type&gt;
async(launch policy, F&amp;&amp; f, Args&amp;&amp;... args);
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li>
<p>Change 30.6.8 [futures.async] as indicated: (Remark: There is also a tiny editorial correction 
in p. 4 that completes one <tt>::</tt> scope specifier)
</p>

<blockquote><p>
-3- <i>Effects</i>: [&hellip;]
</p>
<ul>
<li>[&hellip;]</li>
<li>if <tt>policy &amp; launch::deferred</tt> is non-zero &mdash; Stores <tt><i>DECAY_COPY</i>(std::forward&lt;F&gt;(f))</tt> 
and <tt><i>DECAY_COPY</i>(std::forward&lt;Args&gt;(args))...</tt> in the shared state. These copies of <tt>f</tt> and 
<tt>args</tt> constitute a <i>deferred function</i>. Invocation of the deferred function evaluates 
<tt><i>INVOKE</i>(<ins>std::move(</ins>g<ins>)</ins>, <ins>std::move(</ins>xyz<ins>)</ins>)</tt>
where <tt>g</tt> is the stored value of <tt><i>DECAY_COPY</i>(std::forward&lt;F&gt;(f))</tt> and <tt>xyz</tt> is the 
stored copy of <tt><i>DECAY_COPY</i>(std::forward&lt;Args&gt;(args))...</tt>. The shared state is not made ready 
until the function has completed. The first call to a non-timed waiting function (30.6.4) on an asynchronous
return object referring to this shared state shall invoke the deferred function in the thread that
called the waiting function. Once evaluation of <tt><i>INVOKE</i>(<ins>std::move(</ins>g<ins>)</ins>, 
<ins>std::move(</ins>xyz<ins>)</ins>)</tt> begins, the function is no longer considered deferred. [ <i>Note</i>: If 
this policy is specified together with other policies, such as when using a <tt>policy</tt> value of 
<tt>launch::async | launch::deferred</tt>, implementations should defer invocation or the selection of 
the policy when no more concurrency can be effectively exploited. &mdash; <i>end note</i> ]</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>

<blockquote><p>
-4- <i>Returns</i>: an object of type 
<tt>future&lt;typename result_of&lt;<ins>typename decay&lt;</ins>F<ins>&gt;::type</ins>(<ins>typename decay&lt;</ins>Args<ins>&gt;::type</ins>...)&gt;:<ins>:</ins>type&gt;</tt> 
that refers to the associated asynchronous state created by this call to <tt>async</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2028"></a>2028. <tt>messages_base::catalog</tt> overspecified</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 22.4.7.1 [locale.messages] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Howard Hinnant <b>Opened:</b> 2011-02-14 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Ready">Ready</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
In 22.4.7.1 [locale.messages], <tt>messages_base::catalog</tt> is specified to be a typedef to <tt>int</tt>.  
This type is subsequently used to open, access and close catalogs.
</p>

<p>
However, an OS may have catalog/messaging services that are indexed and managed by types other than <tt>int</tt>.  
For example <tt>POSIX</tt>, publishes the <a href="http://www.unix.org/single_unix_specification/">following messaging API</a>:
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
typedef <em>unspecified</em> nl_catd;

nl_catd catopen(const char* name , int oflag);
char*   catgets(nl_catd catd, int set_id, int msg_id, const char* s);
int     catclose(nl_catd catd);
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
I.e., the catalog is managed with an unspecified type, not necessarily an <tt>int</tt>.  
Mac OS uses a <tt>void*</tt> for <tt>nl_catd</tt> (which is conforming to the <tt>POSIX</tt> standard).  
The current <tt>messages_base</tt> spec effectively outlaws using the built-in OS messaging service 
supplied for this very purpose!
</p>

<p><i>[2011-02-24: Chris Jefferson updates the proposed wording, changing <i>unspecified</i> to <i>unspecified signed integral type</i>]</i></p>


<p><i>[2011-03-02: Daniel updates the proposed wording, changing <i>unspecified signed integral type</i> to
 <i>unspecified signed integer type</i> (We don't want to allow for <tt>bool</tt> or <tt>char</tt>)]</i></p>

 
<p><i>[2011-03-24 Madrid meeting]</i></p>


<p>
Consensus that this resolution is the direction we would like to see.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>Modify 22.4.7.1 [locale.messages]:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  class messages_base {
  public:
    typedef <del>int</del><ins><em>unspecified signed integer type</em></ins> catalog;
  };
  ...
}
</pre></blockquote>

</li>

</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2033"></a>2033. Preconditions of <tt>reserve</tt>, <tt>shrink_to_fit</tt>, and <tt>resize</tt> functions</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.3.6.3 [vector.capacity], 23.3.3.3 [deque.capacity] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Nikolay Ivchenkov <b>Opened:</b> 2011-02-20 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#vector.capacity">active issues</a> in [vector.capacity].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#vector.capacity">issues</a> in [vector.capacity].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Ready">Ready</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
I have several questions with regard to the working paper N3225 (C++0x working draft):
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>
Where the working draft specifies preconditions for <tt>shrink_to_fit</tt>
member function of <tt>std::vector</tt> and <tt>std::deque</tt>?
</p></li>
<li><p>
Where the working draft specifies preconditions for '<tt>void reserve(size_type n)</tt>' 
member function of <tt>std::vector</tt>?
</p></li>
<li><p>
Does a call to '<tt>void resize(size_type sz)</tt>' of <tt>std::vector</tt> require
the element type to be <tt>DefaultConstructible</tt>? If yes, why such
requirement is not listed in the <i>Requires</i> paragraph?
</p></li>
<li><p>
Does a call to '<tt>void resize(size_type sz)</tt>' of <tt>std::vector</tt> require
the element type to be <tt>MoveAssignable</tt> because the call <tt>erase(begin() + sz, end())</tt> 
mentioned in the <i>Effects</i> paragraph would require the element type to be <tt>MoveAssignable</tt>?
</p></li>
<li><p>
Why <tt>CopyInsertable</tt> requirement is used for '<tt>void resize(size_type sz)</tt>' of <tt>std::vector</tt> 
instead of <tt>MoveInsertable</tt> requirement?
</p></li>
</ol>

<p><i>[2011-06-12: Daniel comments and provides wording]</i></p>

<p>According to my understanding of the mental model of vector (and to some parts for deque) the 
some requirements are missing in the standard as response to above questions:</p>
<ol>
<li>The preconditions of <tt>shrink_to_fit</tt> for both <tt>std::vector</tt> and <tt>std::deque</tt>
should impose the <tt>MoveInsertable</tt> requirements. The reason for this is, that these containers
can host move-only types. For a container type <tt>X</tt> the C++03 idiom <tt>X(*this).swap(*this)</tt>
imposes the <tt>CopyInsertable</tt> requirements which would make the function call ill-formed,
which looks like an unacceptable restriction to me. Assuming the committee decides to support the
move-only case, further wording has to be added for the situation where such a move-only type could
throw an exception, because this can leave the object in an unspecified state. This seems consistent
with the requirements of <tt>reserve</tt>, which seems like a very similar function to me (for
<tt>vector</tt>). And this brings us smoothly to the following bullet:
</li>

<li><p>I agree that we are currently missing to specify the preconditions of the <tt>reserve</tt> function.
My interpretation of the mental model of this function is that it should work for move-only types, which
seems to be supported by the wording used in 23.3.6.3 [vector.capacity] p2:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
[&hellip;] If an exception is thrown other than by the move constructor of a non-CopyInsertable type, 
there are no effects.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
Given this statement, the appropriate requirement is <tt>MoveInsertable</tt> into the <tt>vector</tt>.
</p>
</li>

<li>I agree that <tt>vector::resize(size_type)</tt> misses to list the <tt>DefaultConstructible</tt>
requirements.
</li>

<li>Unfortunately the current specification in terms of <tt>erase</tt> implies the <tt>MoveAssignable</tt>
requirements. I don't think that this implication is intended. This function requires "append" and 
"pop-back" effects, respectively, where the former can be realized in terms of <tt>MoveInsertable</tt> 
requirements. The same fix in regard to using <tt>pop_back</tt> instead of <tt>erase</tt> is necessary 
for the two argument overload of <tt>resize</tt> as well (no <tt>MoveAssignable</tt> is required).
</li>

<li>The <tt>CopyInsertable</tt> requirement is incorrect and should be <tt>MoveInsertable</tt> instead.</li>
</ol>

<p>In addition to above mentioned items, the proposed resolution adds a linear complexity bound for 
<tt>shrink_to_fit</tt> and attempts to resolve the related issue <a href="lwg-active.html#2066">2066</a>.</p>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington
]</i></p>


<p>
Move to Ready.
</p>

<p>
Note for editor: we do not normally refer to 'linear <i>time</i>' for complexity requirements, but there
is agreement that any clean-up of such wording is editorial.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Edit 23.3.3.3 [deque.capacity] as indicated [Remark: The suggested change of p4 is
not redundant, because <tt>CopyInsertable</tt> is not necessarily a refinement of <tt>MoveInsertable</tt>
in contrast to the fact that <tt>CopyConstructible</tt> is a refinement of <tt>MoveConstructible</tt>]:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
void resize(size_type sz);
</pre><blockquote><p>
-1- <i>Effects</i>: If <tt>sz &lt;= size()</tt>, equivalent to <del><tt>erase(begin() + sz, 
end());</tt></del><ins>calling <tt>pop_back()</tt> <tt>size() - sz</tt> times</ins>. If 
<tt>size() &lt; sz</tt>, appends <tt>sz - size()</tt> value-initialized elements to the sequence.
<p/>
-2- Requires: <tt>T</tt> shall be <ins><tt>MoveInsertable</tt> into <tt>*this</tt> and</ins> <tt>DefaultConstructible</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote><pre>
void resize(size_type sz, const T&amp; c);
</pre><blockquote><p>
-3- <i>Effects</i>: <ins>If <tt>sz &lt;= size()</tt>, equivalent to calling <tt>pop_back()</tt> 
<tt>size() - sz</tt> times. If <tt>size() &lt; sz</tt>, appends <tt>sz - size()</tt> copies of <tt>c</tt> 
to the sequence.</ins>
</p><blockquote><pre>
<del>if (sz &gt; size())
  insert(end(), sz-size(), c);
else if (sz &lt; size())
  erase(begin()+sz, end());
else
  ; <i>// do nothing</i></del>
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
-4- <i>Requires</i>: <tt>T</tt> shall be <ins><tt>MoveInsertable</tt> into <tt>*this</tt> and</ins> 
<tt>CopyInsertable</tt> into <tt>*this</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote><pre>
void shrink_to_fit();
</pre><blockquote><p>
<ins>-?- <i>Requires</i>: <tt>T</tt> shall be <tt>MoveInsertable</tt> into <tt>*this</tt>.</ins>
<p/>
<ins>-?- <i>Complexity</i>: Takes at most linear time in the size of the sequence.</ins>
<p/>
-5- <i>Remarks</i>: <tt>shrink_to_fit</tt> is a non-binding request to reduce memory use <ins>but does
not change the size of the sequence</ins>. [ <i>Note</i>: The request is non-binding to allow latitude 
for implementation-specific optimizations. &mdash; <i>end note</i> ]
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Edit 23.3.6.3 [vector.capacity] as indicated including edits that also resolve <a href="lwg-active.html#2066">2066</a> 
[Remark: The combined listing of <tt>MoveInsertable</tt> and <tt>CopyInsertable</tt> before p12 is not redundant, 
because <tt>CopyInsertable</tt> is not necessarily a refinement of <tt>MoveInsertable</tt> in contrast to the 
fact that <tt>CopyConstructible</tt> is a refinement of <tt>MoveConstructible</tt>]:</p>

<p>[&hellip;]</p>

<blockquote><pre>
void reserve(size_type n);
</pre><blockquote><p>
<ins>-?- <i>Requires</i>: <tt>T</tt> shall be <tt>MoveInsertable</tt> into <tt>*this</tt>.</ins>
<p/>
-2- <i>Effects</i>: A directive that informs a vector of a planned change in size, so that it can manage the storage
allocation accordingly. After <tt>reserve()</tt>, <tt>capacity()</tt> is greater or equal to the argument of reserve if
reallocation happens; and equal to the previous value of <tt>capacity()</tt> otherwise. Reallocation happens
at this point if and only if the current capacity is less than the argument of <tt>reserve()</tt>. If an exception
is thrown other than by the move constructor of a non-<tt>CopyInsertable</tt> type, there are no effects.
<p/>
-3- <i>Complexity</i>: It does not change the size of the sequence and takes at most linear time in the size of
the sequence.
<p/>
-4- <i>Throws</i>: <tt>length_error</tt> if <tt>n &gt; max_size()</tt>.[footnote 266]
<p/>
-5- <i>Remarks</i>: Reallocation invalidates all the references, pointers, and iterators referring to the elements
in the sequence. It is guaranteed that no reallocation takes place during insertions that happen after
a call to <tt>reserve()</tt> until the time when an insertion would make the size of the vector greater than
the value of <tt>capacity()</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote><pre>
void shrink_to_fit();
</pre><blockquote><p>
<ins>-?- <i>Requires</i>: <tt>T</tt> shall be <tt>MoveInsertable</tt> into <tt>*this</tt>.</ins>
<p/>
<ins>-?- <i>Complexity</i>: Takes at most linear time in the size of the sequence.</ins>
<p/>
-6- <i>Remarks</i>: <tt>shrink_to_fit</tt> is a non-binding request to reduce <tt>capacity()</tt> to <tt>size()</tt>. 
[ <i>Note</i>: The request is non-binding to allow latitude for implementation-specific optimizations. &mdash; <i>end note</i> ]
<ins>If an exception is thrown other than by the move constructor of a non-<tt>CopyInsertable</tt> <tt>T</tt> there 
are no effects.</ins>
</p></blockquote></blockquote>

<p>[&hellip;]</p>

<blockquote><pre>
void resize(size_type sz);
</pre><blockquote><p>
-9- <i>Effects</i>: If <tt>sz &lt;= size()</tt>, equivalent to <del><tt>erase(begin() + sz, end());</tt></del><ins>calling 
<tt>pop_back()</tt> <tt>size() - sz</tt> times</ins>. If <tt>size() &lt; sz</tt>, appends <tt>sz - size()</tt> 
value-initialized elements to the sequence.
<p/>
-10- <i>Requires</i>: <tt>T</tt> shall be <tt><del>Copy</del><ins>Move</ins>Insertable</tt> into <tt>*this</tt> 
<ins>and <tt>DefaultConstructible</tt></ins>.
<p/>
<ins>-??- <i>Remarks</i>: If an exception is thrown other than by the move constructor of a non-<tt>CopyInsertable</tt> 
<tt>T</tt> there are no effects.</ins>
</p></blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote><pre>
void resize(size_type sz, const T&amp; c);
</pre><blockquote><p>
-11- <i>Effects</i>: <ins>If <tt>sz &lt;= size()</tt>, equivalent to calling <tt>pop_back()</tt> 
<tt>size() - sz</tt> times. If <tt>size() &lt; sz</tt>, appends <tt>sz - size()</tt> copies of <tt>c</tt> 
to the sequence.</ins>
</p><blockquote><pre>
<del>if (sz &gt; size())
  insert(end(), sz-size(), c);
else if (sz &lt; size())
  erase(begin()+sz, end());
else
  ; <i>// do nothing</i></del>
</pre></blockquote><p>
<ins>-??- <i>Requires</i>: <tt>T</tt> shall be <tt>MoveInsertable</tt> into <tt>*this</tt> and 
<tt>CopyInsertable</tt> into <tt>*this</tt>.</ins>
<p/>
-12- <i><del>Requires</del><ins>Remarks</ins></i>: If an exception is thrown other than by the move constructor of a 
non-<tt>CopyInsertable</tt> <tt>T</tt> there are no effects.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>

</li>

</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2035"></a>2035. Output iterator requirements are broken</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 24.2.4 [output.iterators] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-02-27 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#output.iterators">active issues</a> in [output.iterators].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#output.iterators">issues</a> in [output.iterators].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>During the Pittsburgh meeting the proposal <a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3066.html">N3066</a>
became accepted because it fixed several severe issues related to the iterator specification. But the current working draft (N3225)
does not reflect all these changes. Since I'm unaware whether every correction can be done editorial, this issue is submitted to take
care of that. To give one example: All expressions of Table 108 &mdash; &quot;Output iterator requirements&quot; have a post-condition
that the iterator is incrementable. This is impossible, because it would exclude any finite sequence that is accessed by an output 
iterator, such as a pointer to a C array. The N3066 wording changes did not have these effects.
</p>

<p><i>[2011-03-01: Daniel comments:]</i></p>


<p>This issue has some overlap with the issue <a href="lwg-active.html#2038">2038</a> and I would prefer if we
could solve both at one location. I suggest the following approach:
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The terms <tt><i>dereferencable</i></tt> and <tt><i>incrementable</i></tt> could be defined in a more
general way not restricted to iterators (similar to the concepts <tt>HasDereference</tt> and 
<tt>HasPreincrement</tt> from working draft N2914). But on the other hand, all current usages of 
<tt><i>dereferencable</i></tt> and <tt><i>incrementable</i></tt> are involved with types that satisfy 
iterator requirements. Thus, I believe that it is sufficient for C++0x to add corresponding definitions to 
24.2.1 [iterator.requirements.general] and to let all previous usages of these terms refer to this 
sub-clause. Since the same problem occurs with the past-the-end iterator, this proposal suggest providing 
similar references to usages that precede its definition as well.
</p></li>
<li><p>We also need to ensure that all iterator expressions get either an operational semantics in
terms of others or we need to add missing pre- and post-conditions. E.g. we have the following
ones without semantics:
</p><blockquote><pre>
*r++ = o // output iterator
*r--     // bidirectional iterator
</pre></blockquote><p>
According to the <a href="http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/OutputIterator.html">SGI specification</a>
these correspond to
</p><blockquote><pre>
{ *r = o; ++r; }                         // output iterator
{ reference tmp = *r; --r; return tmp; } // bidirectional iterator
</pre></blockquote><p>
respectively. Please note especially the latter expression for bidirectional iterator. It fixes a problem
that we have for forward iterator as well: Both these iterator categories provide stronger guarantees
than input iterator, because the result of the dereference operation is <tt>reference</tt>, and <strong>not</strong>
only convertible to the value type (The exact form from the SGI documentation does not correctly refer to
<tt>reference</tt>).
</p></li>
</ol>

<p><i>[2011-03-14: Daniel comments and updates the suggested wording]</i></p>


<p>In addition to the before mentioned necessary changes there is another one need, which
became obvious due to issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#2042">2042</a>: <tt>forward_list&lt;&gt;::before_begin()</tt> returns
an iterator value which is not dereferencable, but obviously the intention is that it should
be incrementable. This leads to the conclusion that imposing dereferencable as a requirement
for the expressions <tt>++r</tt> is wrong: We only need the iterator to be incrementable. A
similar conclusion applies to the expression <tt>--r</tt> of bidirectional iterators.</p>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington
]</i></p>


<p>
Consensus this is the correct direction, but there are (potentially) missing <i>incrementable</i>
preconditions on some table rows, and the Remarks on when an output iterator becomes dereferencable
are probably better handled outside the table, in a manner similar to the way we word for input
iterators.
</p>

<p>
There was some concern about redundant pre-conditions when the operational semantic is defined in
terms of operations that have preconditions, and a similar level of concern over dropping such
redundancies vs. applying a consistent level of redundant specification in all the iterator tables.
Wording clean-up in either direction would be welcome.
</p>

<p><i>[2011-08-18: Daniel adapts the proposed resolution to honor the Bloomington request]</i></p>


<p>
There is only a small number of further changes suggested to get rid of superfluous 
requirements and essentially non-normative assertions. Operations should not have extra 
pre-conditions, if defined by "in-terms-of" semantics, see e.g. <tt>a != b</tt> or <tt>a-&gt;m</tt> 
for Table 107. Further, some remarks, that do not impose anything or say nothing new have been removed, 
because I could not find anything helpful they provide.
E.g. consider the remarks for Table 108 for the operations dereference-assignment and
preincrement: They don't provide additional information say nothing surprising. With the
new pre-conditions <em>and</em> post-conditions it is implied what the remarks intend to say.
</p>

<p><i>[
2011-11-03: Some observations from Alexander Stepanov via c++std-lib-31405
]</i></p>


<p>
The following sentence is dropped from the standard section on OutputIterators:
<p/>
"In particular, the following two conditions should hold: first, any
iterator value should be assigned through before it is incremented
(this is, for an output iterator <tt>i, i++; i++;</tt> is not a valid code
sequence); second, any value of an output iterator may have at most
one active copy at any given time (for example, <tt>i = j; *++i = a; *j = b;</tt> 
is not a valid code sequence)."
</p>

<p><i>[
2011-11-04: Daniel comments and improves the wording
]</i></p>


<p>
In regard to the first part of the comment, the intention of the newly proposed wording 
was to make clear that for the expression
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
*r = o
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
we have the precondition dereferenceable and the post-condition
incrementable. And for the expression
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
++r
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
we have the precondition incrementable and the post-condition dereferenceable 
or past-the-end. This <em>should not</em>  allow for a sequence like <tt>i++; i++;</tt> 
but I agree that it doesn't exactly say that.
<p/>
In regard to the second point: To make this point clearer, I suggest to
add a similar additional wording as we already have for input iterator to the 
"Assertion&#47;note" column of the expression <tt>++r</tt>:
<p/>
"Post: any copies of the previous value of <tt>r</tt> are no longer 
required to be dereferenceable or incrementable."
<p/>
The proposed has been updated to honor the observations of Alexander Stepanov.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<ol>
<li><p>Add a reference to 24.2.1 [iterator.requirements.general] to the following parts of the
library preceding Clause 24 Iterators library: (I stopped from 23.2.5 [unord.req] on, because
the remaining references are the concrete containers)</p>
<ol>
<li><p>17.6.3.2 [swappable.requirements] p5:</p>

<blockquote><p>
-5- A type <tt>X</tt> satisfying any of the iterator requirements (24.2) is <tt><i>ValueSwappable</i></tt> if, 
for any dereferenceable <ins>(24.2.1 [iterator.requirements.general])</ins> object <tt>x</tt> of type 
<tt>X</tt>, <tt>*x</tt> is swappable.
</p></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>17.6.3.5 [allocator.requirements], Table 27 &mdash; &quot;Descriptive variable definitions&quot;, 
row with the expression <tt>c</tt>:</p>

<blockquote><p>
a dereferenceable <ins>(24.2.1 [iterator.requirements.general])</ins> pointer of type <tt>C*</tt>
</p></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>20.6.3.2 [pointer.traits.functions]:</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Returns</i>: The first template function returns a dereferenceable <ins>(24.2.1 [iterator.requirements.general])</ins> 
pointer to <tt>r</tt> obtained by calling <tt>Ptr::pointer_to(r)</tt>;  [&hellip;]
</p></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>21.4.3 [string.iterators] p. 2:</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Returns</i>: An iterator which is the past-the-end value <ins>(24.2.1 [iterator.requirements.general])</ins>.
</p></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>22.4.5.1.2 [locale.time.get.virtuals] p. 11:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
iter_type do_get(iter_type s, iter_type end, ios_base&amp; f,
  ios_base::iostate&amp; err, tm *t, char format, char modifier) const;
</pre><blockquote><p>
<i>Requires</i>: <tt>t</tt> shall be dereferenceable <ins>(24.2.1 [iterator.requirements.general])</ins>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>23.2.1 [container.requirements.general] p. 6:</p>

<blockquote><p>
[&hellip;]  <tt>end()</tt> returns an iterator which is the past-the-end <ins>(24.2.1 [iterator.requirements.general])</ins> 
value for the container.  [&hellip;]
</p></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>23.2.3 [sequence.reqmts] p. 3:</p>

<blockquote><p>
[&hellip;]  <tt>q</tt> denotes a valid dereferenceable <ins>(24.2.1 [iterator.requirements.general])</ins> 
const iterator to <tt>a</tt>,  [&hellip;]
</p></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>23.2.4 [associative.reqmts] p. 8 (I omit intentionally one further reference in the same sub-clause):</p>

<blockquote><p>
[&hellip;]  <tt>q</tt> denotes a valid dereferenceable <ins>(24.2.1 [iterator.requirements.general])</ins> 
const iterator to <tt>a</tt>,  [&hellip;]
</p></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>23.2.5 [unord.req] p. 10 (I omit intentionally one further reference in the same sub-clause):</p>

<blockquote><p>
[&hellip;]  <tt>q</tt> and <tt>q1</tt> are valid dereferenceable <ins>(24.2.1 [iterator.requirements.general])</ins> 
const iterators to <tt>a</tt>,  [&hellip;]
</p></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>

</li>
<li><p>Edit 24.2.1 [iterator.requirements.general] p. 5 as indicated (The intent is to properly define
<i>incrementable</i> and to ensure some further library guarantee related to past-the-end iterator values):</p>

<blockquote><p>
-5- Just as a regular pointer to an array guarantees that there is a pointer value pointing past the last element
of the array, so for any iterator type there is an iterator value that points past the last element of a
corresponding sequence. These values are called <i>past-the-end values</i>. Values of an iterator <tt>i</tt> for which the
expression <tt>*i</tt> is defined are called <i>dereferenceable</i>. <ins>Values of an iterator <tt>i</tt> for which the
expression <tt>++i</tt> is defined are called <i>incrementable</i>. </ins> The library never assumes that 
past-the-end values are dereferenceable <ins>or incrementable</ins>. Iterators can also have singular values 
that are not associated with any sequence. [&hellip;]
</p></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Modify the column contents of Table 106 &mdash; &quot;Iterator requirements&quot;, 
24.2.2 [iterator.iterators], as indicated:</p>

<blockquote>
<table border="1">
<caption>Table 106 &mdash; Iterator requirements</caption>

<tr>
<th>Expression</th>
<th>Return type</th>
<th>Operational semantics</th>
<th>Assertion&#47;note<br/>pre-&#47;post-condition</th>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>*r</tt></td>
<td><tt>reference</tt></td>
<td><tt>&nbsp;</tt></td>
<td>pre: <tt>r</tt> is dereferenceable.</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>++r</tt></td>
<td><tt>X&amp;</tt></td>
<td><tt>&nbsp;</tt></td>
<td><ins>pre: <tt>r</tt> is incrementable.</ins></td>
</tr>

</table>
</blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Modify the column contents of Table 107 &mdash; &quot;Input iterator requirements&quot;, 
24.2.3 [input.iterators], as indicated [<i>Rationale</i>: The wording changes attempt
to define a minimal "independent" set of operations, namely <tt>*a</tt> and <tt>++r</tt>, and 
to specify the semantics of the remaining ones. This approach seems to be in agreement with the 
original <a href="http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/InputIterator.html">SGI specification</a> 
&mdash; <i>end rationale</i>]:</p>

<blockquote>
<table border="1">
<caption>Table 107 &mdash; Input iterator requirements (in addition to Iterator)</caption>

<tr>
<th>Expression</th>
<th>Return type</th>
<th>Operational semantics</th>
<th>Assertion&#47;note<br/>pre-&#47;post-condition</th>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>a != b</tt></td>
<td>contextually<br/>
convertible to <tt>bool</tt></td>
<td><tt>!(a == b)</tt></td>
<td><del>pre: <tt>(a, b)</tt> is in the domain<br/>
of <tt>==</tt>.</del>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>*a</tt></td>
<td>convertible to <tt>T</tt></td>
<td><tt>&nbsp;</tt></td>
<td>pre: <tt>a</tt> is dereferenceable.<br/>
The expression<br/>
<tt>(void)*a, *a</tt> is equivalent<br/>
to <tt>*a</tt>.<br/>
If <tt>a == b</tt> and <tt>(a,b)</tt> is in<br/>
the domain of <tt>==</tt> then <tt>*a</tt> is<br/>
equivalent to <tt>*b</tt>.
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>a-&gt;m</tt></td>
<td><tt>&nbsp;</tt></td>
<td><tt>(*a).m</tt></td>
<td><del>pre: <tt>a</tt> is dereferenceable.</del></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>++r</tt></td>
<td><tt>X&amp;</tt></td>
<td><tt>&nbsp;</tt></td>
<td>pre: <tt>r</tt> is <del>dereferenceable</del><ins>incrementable</ins>.<br/>
post: <tt>r</tt> is dereferenceable or<br/>
<tt>r</tt> is past-the-end.<br/>
post: any copies of the<br/>
previous value of <tt>r</tt> are no<br/>
longer required either to be<br/>
dereferenceable<ins>, incrementable,</ins><br/>
or to be in the domain of <tt>==</tt>.
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>(void)r++</tt></td>
<td><tt>&nbsp;</tt></td>
<td><ins><tt>(void)++r</tt></ins></td>
<td><del>equivalent to <tt>(void)++r</tt></del></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>*r++</tt></td>
<td>convertible to <tt>T</tt></td>
<td><tt>{ T tmp = *r;<br/>
++r;<br/>
return tmp; }
</tt></td>
<td><tt>&nbsp;</tt></td>
</tr>

</table>
</blockquote>
</li>

<li>
<p>Modify the column contents of Table 108 &mdash; &quot;Output iterator requirements&quot;, 
24.2.4 [output.iterators], as indicated [<i>Rationale</i>: The wording changes attempt
to define a minimal "independent" set of operations, namely <tt>*r = o</tt> and <tt>++r</tt>,
and to specify the semantics of the remaining ones. This approach seems to be in agreement with
the original <a href="http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/OutputIterator.html">SGI specification</a> 
&mdash; <i>end rationale</i>]:</p>

<blockquote>
<table border="1">
<caption>Table 108 &mdash; Output iterator requirements (in addition to Iterator)</caption>

<tr>
<th>Expression</th>
<th>Return type</th>
<th>Operational semantics</th>
<th>Assertion&#47;note<br/>pre-&#47;post-condition</th>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>*r = o</tt></td>
<td>result is not used</td>
<td><tt>&nbsp;</tt></td>
<td><ins>pre: <tt>r</tt> is dereferenceable.</ins><br/>
<i>Remark</i>: After this operation<br/>
<tt>r</tt> is not required to be<br/>
dereferenceable <ins>and any copies of<br/>
the previous value of <tt>r</tt> are no<br/>
longer required to be dereferenceable<br/>
or incrementable.</ins><br/>
post: <tt>r</tt> is incrementable.
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>++r</tt></td>
<td><tt>X&amp;</tt></td>
<td><tt>&nbsp;</tt></td>
<td><ins>pre: <tt>r</tt> is incrementable.</ins><br/>
<tt>&amp;r == &amp;++r</tt>.<br/>
<del><i>Remark</i>: After this operation<br/>
<tt>r</tt> is not required to be<br/>
dereferenceable.<br/></del>
<ins><i>Remark</i>: After this operation<br/>
<tt>r</tt> is not required to be<br/>
incrementable and any copies of<br/>
the previous value of <tt>r</tt> are no<br/>
longer required to be dereferenceable<br/>
or incrementable.</ins><br/>
post: <tt>r</tt> is <ins>dereferenceable<br/>
or <tt>r</tt> is past-the-end</ins><del>incrementable</del>.<br/>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>r++</tt></td>
<td>convertible to <tt>const X&amp;</tt></td>
<td><tt>{ X tmp = r;<br/>
  ++r;<br/>
  return tmp; }</tt>
</td>
<td><del><i>Remark</i>: After this operation<br/>
<tt>r</tt> is not required to be<br/>
dereferenceable.<br/>
post: <tt>r</tt> is incrementable.</del>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>*r++ = o</tt></td>
<td>result is not used</td>
<td><ins><tt>{ *r = o; ++r; }</tt></ins></td>
<td><del><i>Remark</i>: After this operation<br/>
<tt>r</tt> is not required to be<br/>
dereferenceable.<br/>
post: <tt>r</tt> is incrementable.</del>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Modify the column contents of Table 109 &mdash; &quot;Forward iterator requirements&quot;, 
24.2.5 [forward.iterators], as indicated [<i>Rationale</i>: Since the return type of the
expression <tt>*r++</tt> is now guaranteed to be type <tt>reference</tt>, the implied operational
semantics from input iterator based on value copies is wrong &mdash; <i>end rationale</i>]</p>

<blockquote>
<table border="1">
<caption>Table 109 &mdash; Forward iterator requirements (in addition to input iterator)</caption>

<tr>
<th>Expression</th>
<th>Return type</th>
<th>Operational semantics</th>
<th>Assertion&#47;note<br/>pre-&#47;post-condition</th>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>r++</tt></td>
<td>convertible to <tt>const X&amp;</tt></td>
<td><tt>{ X tmp = r;<br/>
  ++r;<br/>
  return tmp; }</tt>
</td>
<td><tt>&nbsp;</tt></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>*r++</tt></td>
<td>reference</td>
<td><ins><tt>{ reference tmp = *r;<br/>
 ++r;<br/> 
 return tmp; }</tt></ins></td>
<td><tt>&nbsp;</tt></td>
</tr>
</table>
</blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Modify the column contents of Table 110 &mdash; &quot;Bidirectional iterator requirements&quot;, 
24.2.6 [bidirectional.iterators], as indicated:</p>

<blockquote>
<table border="1">
<caption>Table 110 &mdash; Bidirectional iterator requirements (in addition to forward iterator)</caption>

<tr>
<th>Expression</th>
<th>Return type</th>
<th>Operational semantics</th>
<th>Assertion&#47;note<br/>pre-&#47;post-condition</th>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>--r</tt></td>
<td><tt>X&amp;</tt></td>
<td><tt>&nbsp;</tt></td>
<td>pre: there exists <tt>s</tt> such that<br/>
<tt>r == ++s</tt>.<br/>
post: <tt>r</tt> is <del>dereferenceable</del><ins>incrementable</ins>.<br/>
<tt>--(++r) == r</tt>.<br/>
<tt>--r == --s</tt> implies <tt>r == s</tt>.<br/>
<tt>&amp;r == &amp;--r</tt>.
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>r--</tt></td>
<td>convertible to <tt>const X&amp;</tt></td>
<td><tt>{ X tmp = r;<br/>
  --r;<br/>
  return tmp; }</tt>
</td>
<td><tt>&nbsp;</tt></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><tt>*r--</tt></td>
<td>reference</td>
<td><ins><tt>{ reference tmp = *r;<br/>
 --r;<br/> 
 return tmp; }</tt></ins></td>
<td><tt>&nbsp;</tt></td>
</tr>
</table>
</blockquote>
</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2038"></a>2038. Missing definition for <tt>incrementable</tt> iterator</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 24.2.4 [output.iterators] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Pete Becker <b>Opened:</b> 2011-02-27 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#output.iterators">active issues</a> in [output.iterators].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#output.iterators">issues</a> in [output.iterators].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>In comp.lang.c++, Vicente Botet raises the following questions:</p>

<blockquote><p>
&quot;In "24.2.4 Output iterators" there are 3 uses of incrementable. I've
not found the definition. Could some one point me where it is defined?
<p/>
Something similar occurs with dereferenceable. While the definition is
given in "24.2.1 In general" it is used several times before.
<p/>
Shouldn't these definitions be moved to some previous section?&quot;
</p></blockquote>

<p>He's right: both terms are used without being properly defined.
<p/>
There is no definition of "incrementable".
<p/>
While there is a definition of "dereferenceable", it is, in fact, a definition of 
"dereferenceable iterator". "dereferenceable" is used throughout Clause 23 (Containers) 
before its definition in Clause 24. In almost all cases it's referring to iterators, 
but in 17.6.3.2 [swappable.requirements] there is a mention of "dereferenceable object"; in 
17.6.3.5 [allocator.requirements] the table of Descriptive variable definitions refers to a 
"dereferenceable pointer"; 20.6.3.2 [pointer.traits.functions] refers to a 
"dereferenceable pointer"; in 22.4.5.1.2 [locale.time.get.virtuals]&#47;11 (<tt>do_get</tt>) 
there is a requirement that a pointer "shall be dereferenceable". In those specific cases 
it is not defined.
</p>

<p><i>[2011-03-02: Daniel comments:]</i></p>


<p>I believe that the currently proposed resolution of issue <a href="lwg-active.html#2035">2035</a> solves this
issue as well.</p>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington
]</i></p>


<p>
Agree with Daniel, this will be handled by the resolution of <a href="lwg-active.html#2035">2035</a>.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2039"></a>2039. Issues with <tt>std::reverse</tt> and <tt>std::copy_if</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 25.3.1 [alg.copy], 25.3.10 [alg.reverse] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Nikolay Ivchenkov <b>Opened:</b> 2011-03-02 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Ready">Ready</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<ol>
<li><p>In the description of <tt>std::reverse</tt></p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Effects</i>: For each non-negative integer <tt>i &lt;= (last - first)/2</tt>, applies <tt>iter_swap</tt> 
to all pairs of iterators <tt>first + i</tt>, <tt>(last - i) - 1</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
should be changed to
</p><blockquote><p>
<i>Effects</i>: For each non-negative integer <tt>i <strong>&lt;</strong> (last - first)/2</tt>, applies <tt>iter_swap</tt> 
to all pairs of iterators <tt>first + i</tt>, <tt>(last - i) - 1</tt>.
</p></blockquote><p>
Here <tt>i</tt> shall be strictly less than <tt>(last - first)/2</tt>.
</p>
</li>
<li><p>In the description of <tt>std::copy_if</tt> <i>Returns</i> paragraph is missing.</p></li>
</ol>

<p><i>[2011-03-02: Daniel drafts wording]</i></p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<ol>
<li><p>Modify 25.3.10 [alg.reverse] p. 1 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><p>
1 <i>Effects</i>: For each non-negative integer <tt>i &lt;<del>=</del> (last - first)/2</tt>, applies <tt>iter_swap</tt> 
to all pairs of iterators <tt>first + i</tt>, <tt>(last - i) - 1</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Add the following <i>Returns</i> element after 25.3.1 [alg.copy] p. 9:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class InputIterator, class OutputIterator, class Predicate&gt;
OutputIterator copy_if(InputIterator first, InputIterator last,
   OutputIterator result, Predicate pred);
</pre><blockquote><p>
8 <i>Requires</i>: The ranges <tt>[first,last)</tt> and <tt>[result,result + (last - first))</tt> shall not overlap.
<p/>
9 <i>Effects</i>: Copies all of the elements referred to by the iterator <tt>i</tt> in the range <tt>[first,last)</tt> 
for which <tt>pred(*i)</tt> is true.
<p/>
<ins>?? <i>Returns</i>: The end of the resulting range.</ins>
<p/>
10 <i>Complexity</i>: Exactly <tt>last - first</tt> applications of the corresponding predicate.
<p/>
11 <i>Remarks</i>: Stable.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2044"></a>2044. No definition of "Stable" for copy algorithms</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 17.6.5.7 [algorithm.stable] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Pablo Halpern <b>Opened:</b> 2011-03-24 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Ready">Ready</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
17.6.5.7 [algorithm.stable] specified the meaning of "stable" when applied to 
the different types of algorithms. The second bullet says:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
&mdash; For the <i>remove</i> algorithms the relative order of the elements that are not removed is preserved.
</p></blockquote>

<p>
There is no description of what "stable" means for copy algorithms, even though the term is 
applied to <tt>copy_if</tt> (and perhaps others now or in the future). Thus, <tt>copy_if</tt> 
is using the term without a precise definition.
</p>

<p><i>[Bloomington, 2011]</i></p>

<p>
Move to Ready
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>

<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>In 17.6.5.7 [algorithm.stable] p. 1 change as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><p>
When the requirements for an algorithm state that it is stable without further elaboration, it means:
</p>
<ul>
<li>For the <i>sort</i> algorithms the relative order of equivalent elements is preserved.</li>
<li>For the <i>remove</i> <ins>and <i>copy</i></ins> algorithms the relative order of the elements that are 
not removed is preserved.</li>
<li>For the <i>merge</i> algorithms, for equivalent elements in the original two ranges, the elements from the
first range precede the elements from the second range.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>

</li>

</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2045"></a>2045. <tt>forward_list::merge</tt> and <tt>forward_list::splice_after</tt> with unequal allocators</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.3.4.6 [forwardlist.ops] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Pablo Halpern <b>Opened:</b> 2011-03-24 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#forwardlist.ops">active issues</a> in [forwardlist.ops].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#forwardlist.ops">issues</a> in [forwardlist.ops].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Ready">Ready</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
See also: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1215">1215</a>
</p>

<p>
<tt>list::merge</tt> and <tt>list::splice</tt> have the requirement that the two lists being merged or 
spliced must use the same allocator. Otherwise, moving list nodes from one container to the other would 
corrupt the data structure. The same requirement is needed for <tt>forward_list::merge</tt> and 
<tt>forward_list::splice_after</tt>.
</p>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington
]</i></p>


<p>
Move to Ready.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>

<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>In 23.3.4.6 [forwardlist.ops] p. 1 change as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
void splice_after(const_iterator position, forward_list&lt;T,Allocator&gt;&amp; x);
void splice_after(const_iterator position, forward_list&lt;T,Allocator&gt;&amp;&amp; x);
</pre><p>
1 - <i>Requires</i>: <tt>position</tt> is <tt>before_begin()</tt> or is a dereferenceable 
iterator in the range [<tt>begin()</tt>,<tt>end()</tt>). <ins><tt>get_allocator() == x.get_allocator()</tt>.</ins> 
<tt>&amp;x != this</tt>.
</p></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>In 23.3.4.6 [forwardlist.ops] p. 5 change as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
void splice_after(const_iterator position, forward_list&lt;T,Allocator&gt;&amp; x, const_iterator i);
void splice_after(const_iterator position, forward_list&lt;T,Allocator&gt;&amp;&amp; x, const_iterator i);
</pre><p>
5 - <i>Requires</i>: <tt>position</tt> is <tt>before_begin()</tt> or is a dereferenceable 
iterator in the range [<tt>begin()</tt>,<tt>end()</tt>). The iterator following <tt>i</tt> is a 
dereferenceable iterator in <tt>x</tt>. <ins><tt>get_allocator() == x.get_allocator()</tt>.</ins>
</p></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>In 23.3.4.6 [forwardlist.ops] p. 9 change as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
void splice_after(const_iterator position, forward_list&lt;T,Allocator&gt;&amp; x, 
                  const_iterator first, const_iterator last);
void splice_after(const_iterator position, forward_list&lt;T,Allocator&gt;&amp;&amp; x, 
                  const_iterator first, const_iterator last);
</pre><p>
9 - <i>Requires</i>: <tt>position</tt> is <tt>before_begin()</tt> or is a dereferenceable 
iterator in the range [<tt>begin()</tt>,<tt>end()</tt>). (<tt>first</tt>,<tt>last</tt>) is a valid range 
in <tt>x</tt>, and all iterators in the range (<tt>first</tt>,<tt>last</tt>) are dereferenceable.
<tt>position</tt> is not an iterator in the range (<tt>first</tt>,<tt>last</tt>). 
<ins><tt>get_allocator() == x.get_allocator()</tt>.</ins>
</p></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>In 23.3.4.6 [forwardlist.ops] p. 18 change as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
void merge(forward_list&lt;T,Allocator&gt;&amp; x);
void merge(forward_list&lt;T,Allocator&gt;&amp;&amp; x);
template &lt;class Compare&gt; void merge(forward_list&lt;T,Allocator&gt;&amp; x, Compare comp);
template &lt;class Compare&gt; void merge(forward_list&lt;T,Allocator&gt;&amp;&amp; x, Compare comp);
</pre><p>
18 - <i>Requires</i>: <tt>comp</tt> defines a strict weak ordering ([alg.sorting]), and <tt>*this</tt> 
and <tt>x</tt> are both sorted according to this ordering. <ins><tt>get_allocator() == x.get_allocator()</tt>.</ins>
</p></blockquote>

</li>

</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2047"></a>2047. Incorrect "mixed" move-assignment semantics of <tt>unique_ptr</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.7.1.2.3 [unique.ptr.single.asgn] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-04-16 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#unique.ptr.single.asgn">issues</a> in [unique.ptr.single.asgn].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Ready">Ready</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>The semantics described in 20.7.1.2.3 [unique.ptr.single.asgn] p. 6</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Effects</i>: Transfers ownership from <tt>u</tt> to <tt>*this</tt> as if [&hellip;] followed 
by an assignment from <tt>std::forward&lt;D&gt;(u.get_deleter())</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
contradicts to the pre-conditions described in p. 4:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Requires</i>: If E is not a reference type, assignment of the deleter from an rvalue of type <tt>E</tt> shall be
well-formed and shall not throw an exception. Otherwise, <tt>E</tt> is a reference type and assignment of the
deleter from an lvalue of type <tt>E</tt> shall be well-formed and shall not throw an exception.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
Either the pre-conditions are incorrect or the semantics should be an assignment from
<tt>std::forward&lt;<span style="color:red;font-weight:bolder">E</span>&gt;(u.get_deleter())</tt>, instead.
</p>
<p>It turns out that this contradiction is due to an incorrect transcription from the proposed
resolution of <a href="lwg-defects.html#983">983</a> to the finally accepted proposal 
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3073.html">n3073</a> (see
bullet 12) as confirmed by Howard Hinnant, thus the type argument provided to <tt>std::forward</tt>
must be fixed as indicated.
</p>

<p><i>[Bloomington, 2011]</i></p>

<p>
Move to Ready
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>

<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Edit 20.7.1.2.3 [unique.ptr.single.asgn] p. 6 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class U, class E&gt; unique_ptr&amp; operator=(unique_ptr&lt;U, E&gt;&amp;&amp; u) noexcept;
</pre><blockquote><p>
4 - <i>Requires</i>: If <tt>E</tt> is not a reference type, assignment of the deleter from an rvalue 
of type <tt>E</tt> shall be well-formed and shall not throw an exception. Otherwise, <tt>E</tt> is a 
reference type and assignment of the deleter from an lvalue of type <tt>E</tt> shall be well-formed and 
shall not throw an exception.
<p/>
5 - <i>Remarks</i>: This operator shall not participate in overload resolution unless:</p>
<ul>
<li><tt>unique_ptr&lt;U, E&gt;::pointer</tt> is implicitly convertible to <tt>pointer</tt> and</li>
<li><tt>U</tt> is not an array type.</li>
</ul>
<p>
6 - <i>Effects</i>: Transfers ownership from <tt>u</tt> to <tt>*this</tt> as if by calling 
<tt>reset(u.release())</tt> followed by an assignment from <tt>std::forward&lt;<del>D</del><ins>E</ins>&gt;(u.get_deleter())</tt>.
<p/>
7 - <i>Returns</i>: <tt>*this</tt>.
</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

</li>
</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2048"></a>2048. Unnecessary <tt>mem_fn</tt> overloads</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.8 [function.objects], 20.8.10 [func.memfn] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Review">Review</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2011-04-18 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#function.objects">issues</a> in [function.objects].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Review">Review</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
The <tt>mem_fn</tt> overloads for member functions are redundant and misleading
and should be removed from the post-C++11 WP.
<p/>
I believe the history of the overloads is as follows:
<p/>
In TR1 and in C++0x prior to the N2798 draft, <tt>mem_fn</tt> was specified by
a single signature:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class R, class T&gt; <i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R T::* pm);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
and was accompanied by the remark "Implementations may implement <tt>mem_fn</tt> 
as a set of overloaded function templates." This remark predates variadic templates 
and was presumably to allow implementations to provide overloads for a limited 
number of function parameters, to meet the implementation-defined limit on numbers of
template parameters.
<p/>
N2770 "Concepts for the C++0x Standard Library: Utilities" added
separate overloads for pointers to member functions, apparently so
that function parameters would require the <tt>CopyConstructible</tt> concept
(those overloads first appeared in N2322.) The overloads failed to
account for varargs member functions (i.e. those declared with an
ellipsis in the parameter-declaration-clause) e.g.
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
struct S {
 int f(int, ...);
};
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
Syntactically such a function would be handled by the original
<tt>mem_fn(R T::* pm)</tt> signature, the only minor drawback being that there
would be no <tt>CopyConstructible</tt> requirement on the parameter list. (Core
DR 547 clarifies that partial specializations can be written to match
cv-qualified and ref-qualified functions to support the case where <tt>R T::*</tt> 
matches a pointer to member function type.)
<p/>
LWG issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#920">920</a> pointed out that additional overloads were missing for
member functions with ref-qualifiers. These were not strictly
necessary, because such functions are covered by the <tt>mem_fn(R T::* pm)</tt> signature.
<p/>
Concepts were removed from the draft and N3000 restored the original
single signature and accompanying remark.
<p/>
LWG <a href="lwg-closed.html#1230">1230</a> was opened to strike the remark again and to add an overload
for member functions (this overload was unnecessary for syntactic reasons and 
insufficient as it didn't handle member functions with cv-qualifiers and&#47;or 
ref-qualifiers.)
<p/>
<a href="lwg-defects.html#920">920</a> (and <a href="lwg-closed.html#1230">1230</a>) were resolved by restoring a full set of
(non-concept-enabled) overloads for member functions with cv-qualifiers and ref-qualifiers,
but as in the concept-enabled draft there were no overloads for member functions with 
an ellipsis in the parameter-declaration-clause. This is what is present in the FDIS.
<p/>
Following the thread beginning with message c++std-lib-30675, it is my
understanding that all the <tt>mem_fn</tt> overloads for member functions are
unnecessary and were only ever added to allow concept requirements.
I'm not aware of any reason implementations cannot implement <tt>mem_fn</tt> as
a single function template. Without concepts the overloads are
redundant, and the absence of overloads for varargs functions can be
interpreted to imply that varargs functions are not intended to work
with <tt>mem_fn</tt>. Clarifying the intent by adding overloads for varargs
functions would expand the list of 12 redundant overloads to 24, it
would be much simpler to remove the 12 redundant overloads entirely.
</p>

<p><i>[Bloomington, 2011]</i></p>

<p>
Move to Review.
</p>

<p>
The issue and resolution appear to be correct, but there is some concern that the wording of INVOKE may be different depending on whether you pass a pointer-to-member-data or pointer-to-member-function.  That might make the current wording necessary after all, and then we might need to add the missing elipsis overloads.
</p>

<p>
There was some concern that the Remark confirming implementors had freedom to implement this as a set of overloaded functions may need to be restored if we delete the specification for these overloads.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>

<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change the <tt>&lt;functional&gt;</tt> synopsis 20.8 [function.objects] p. 2 as follows:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  [&hellip;]
  // <i>[func.memfn], member function adaptors:</i>
  template&lt;class R, class T&gt; <i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R T::*);
<del>  template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
  <i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...));
  template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
  <i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...) const);
  template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
  <i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...) volatile);
  template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
  <i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...) const volatile);
  template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
  <i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...) &amp;);
  template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
  <i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...) const &amp;);
  template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
  <i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...) volatile &amp;);
  template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
  <i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...) const volatile &amp;);
  template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
  <i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...) &amp;&amp;);
  template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
  <i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...) const &amp;&amp;);
  template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
  <i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...) volatile &amp;&amp;);
  template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
  <i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...) const volatile &amp;&amp;);</del>

  [&hellip;]
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 20.8.10 [func.memfn] as follows:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class R, class T&gt; <i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R T::*);
<del>template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
<i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...));
template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
<i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...) const);
template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
<i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...) volatile);
template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
<i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...) const volatile);
template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
<i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...) &amp;);
template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
<i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...) const &amp;);
template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
<i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...) volatile &amp;);
template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
<i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...) const volatile &amp;);
template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
<i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...) &amp;&amp;);
template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
<i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...) const &amp;&amp;);
template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
<i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...) volatile &amp;&amp;);
template&lt;class R, class T, class... Args&gt;
<i>unspecified</i> mem_fn(R (T::*)(Args...) const volatile &amp;&amp;);</del>
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2049"></a>2049. <tt>is_destructible</tt> is underspecified</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.9.4.3 [meta.unary.prop] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Review">Review</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-04-18 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#meta.unary.prop">active issues</a> in [meta.unary.prop].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#meta.unary.prop">issues</a> in [meta.unary.prop].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Review">Review</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>The conditions for the type trait <tt>is_destructible</tt> to be true
are described in Table 49 &mdash; Type property predicates:</p>
<blockquote><p>
For a complete type <tt>T</tt> and given<br/>
<tt>template &lt;class U&gt;
struct test { U u; };</tt>,<br/>
<tt>test&lt;T&gt;::~test()</tt> is not deleted.
</p></blockquote>

<p>This specification does not say what the result would be for function
types or for abstract types:</p>
<ol>
<li>For an abstract type <tt>X</tt> the instantiation <tt>test&lt;X&gt;</tt>
is already ill-formed, so we cannot say anything about whether the destructor
would be deleted or not.</li>
<li>In regard to function types, there exists a special rule in the core language, 14.3.1 [temp.arg.type] p. 3,
which excludes member functions to be declared via the type of the template parameter:
<blockquote><p>
If a declaration acquires a function type through a type dependent on a <i>template-parameter</i>
and this causes a declaration that does not use the syntactic form of a function declarator 
to have function type, the program is ill-formed. 
<p/>
[ <i>Example</i>:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class T&gt; struct A {
  static T t;
};
typedef int function();
A&lt;function&gt; a; // ill-formed: would declare A&lt;function&gt;::t
               // as a static member function
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
&mdash; <i>end example</i> ]
</p></blockquote>
which has the same consequence as for abstract types, namely that the corresponding
instantiation of <tt>test</tt> is already ill-formed and we cannot say anything
about the destructor.
</li>
</ol>
<p>To solve this problem, I suggest to specify function types as trivially and nothrowing
destructible, because above mentioned rule is very special for templates. For non-templates,
a typedef can be used to introduce a member as member function as clarified in 8.3.5 [dcl.fct]
p. 10.</p>
<p>For abstract types, two different suggestions have been brought to my attention:
Either declare them as unconditionally non-destructible or check whether the expression
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
std::declval&lt;T&amp;&gt;().~T()
</pre></blockquote>
<p>is well-formed in an unevaluated context. The first solution is very easy to specify,
but the second version has the advantage for providing more information to user-code. This 
information could be quite useful, if generic code is supposed to invoke the destructor
of a reference to a base class indirectly via a delete expression, as suggested by
Howard Hinnant:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class T&gt;
my_pointer&lt;T&gt;::~my_pointer() noexcept(is_nothrow_destructible&lt;T&gt;::value)
{
   delete ptr_;
}
</pre></blockquote>
<p>Additional to the <tt>is_destructible</tt> traits, its derived forms <tt>is_trivially_destructible</tt>
and <tt>is_nothrow_destructible</tt> are similarly affected, because their wording refers to "the indicated
destructor" and probably need to be adapted as well.</p>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington
]</i></p>


<p>
After discussion about to to handle the exceptional cases of reference types, function types (available by defererencing a function pointer)
and <tt>void</tt> types, Howard supplied proposed wording.
</p>

<p><i>[
2011-08-20 Daniel comments and provides alternatives wording
]</i></p>


<p>
The currently proposed wording would have the consequence that 
<em>every</em> array type is not destructible, because the pseudo-destructor
requires a scalar type with the effect that the expression
</p><blockquote><pre>
std::declval&lt;T&amp;&gt;().~T()
</pre></blockquote><p>
is not well-formed for e.g. <tt>T</tt> equal to <tt>int[3]</tt>. The intuitive
solution to fix this problem would be to adapt the object type case to refer to 
the expression
</p><blockquote><pre>
std::declval&lt;U&amp;&gt;().~U()
</pre></blockquote><p>
with <tt>U</tt> equal to <tt>remove_all_extents&lt;T&gt;::type</tt>, but that
would have the effect that arrays of unknown bounds would be destructible, if 
the element type is destructible, which was not the case before (This was 
intentionally covered by the special "For a complete type T" rule in
the FDIS).
<p/>
Suggestion: Use the following definition instead:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
Let <tt>U</tt> be <tt>remove_all_extents&lt;T&gt;::type</tt>.<br/>
For incomplete types and function types, <tt>is_destructible&lt;T&gt;::value</tt> is <tt>false</tt>.<br/>
For object types, if the expression <tt>std::declval&lt;U&amp;&gt;().~U()</tt> is well-formed<br/>
when treated as an unevaluated operand (Clause 5), then <tt>is_destructible&lt;T&gt;::value</tt><br/>
is <tt>true</tt>, otherwise it is <tt>false</tt>.<br/>
For reference types, <tt>is_destructible&lt;T&gt;::value</tt> is <tt>true</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
This wording also harmonizes with the "unevaluated operand" phrase
used in other places, there does not exist the definition of an
"unevaluated context"
<p/>
<em>Note:</em> In the actually proposed wording this wording has been slightly reordered with the same effects. 
</p>

<p><strong>Howard's (old) proposed resolution:</strong></p>
<blockquote class="note">
<p>
Update 20.9.4.3 [meta.unary.prop], table 49:
</p>

<table border="1">
<tr>
<td><tt>template &lt;class T&gt;
struct is_destructible;</tt></td>
<td>
<del>For a complete type <tt>T</tt> and given <tt>template &lt;class U&gt; struct test { U u; };</tt>, <tt>test&lt;T&gt;::~test()</tt> is not deleted.
</del>
<br/>
<ins>
For object types, if the expression: <tt>std::declval&lt;T&amp;>().~T()</tt> is well-formed in an unevaluated context then
<tt>is_destructible&lt;T>::value</tt> is <tt>true</tt>, otherwise it is <tt>false</tt>.
<br/>
For <tt>void</tt> types, <tt>is_destructible&lt;T>::value</tt> is <tt>false</tt>.
<br/>
For reference types, <tt>is_destructible&lt;T>::value</tt> is <tt>true</tt>.
<br/>
For function types, <tt>is_destructible&lt;T>::value</tt> is <tt>false</tt>.
</ins>
</td>
<td><tt>T</tt> shall be a complete type, (possibly cv-qualified) <tt>void</tt>, or an array of unknown bound.</td>
</tr>
</table>
</blockquote>
<p>
</p>


<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>

<p>
Update 20.9.4.3 [meta.unary.prop], table 49:
</p>

<table border="1">
<tr>
<td><tt>template &lt;class T&gt;
struct is_destructible;</tt></td>
<td>
<del>For a complete type <tt>T</tt> and given <tt>template &lt;class U&gt; struct test { U u; };</tt>, <tt>test&lt;T&gt;::~test()</tt> is not deleted.
</del>
<br/>
<ins>
For reference types, <tt>is_destructible&lt;T&gt;::value</tt> is <tt>true</tt>.<br/>
For incomplete types and function types, <tt>is_destructible&lt;T&gt;::value</tt> is <tt>false</tt>.<br/>
For object types and given <tt>U</tt> equal to <tt>remove_all_extents&lt;T&gt;::type</tt>,<br/> 
if the expression <tt>std::declval&lt;U&amp;&gt;().~U()</tt> is well-formed when treated as an<br/>
unevaluated operand (Clause 5 [expr]), then <tt>is_destructible&lt;T&gt;::value</tt> is <tt>true</tt>,<br/>
otherwise it is <tt>false</tt>.<br/>
</ins>
</td>
<td><tt>T</tt> shall be a complete type, (possibly cv-qualified) <tt>void</tt>, or an array of unknown bound.</td>
</tr>
</table>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2050"></a>2050. Unordered associative containers do not use <tt>allocator_traits</tt> to define member types</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.5 [unord] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Tom Zieberman <b>Opened:</b> 2011-04-29 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#unord">issues</a> in [unord].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Ready">Ready</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>The unordered associative containers define their member types <tt>reference</tt>, 
<tt>const_reference</tt>, <tt>pointer</tt>, <tt>const_pointer</tt> in terms of 
their template parameter <tt>Allocator</tt> (via <tt>allocator_type</tt> typedef). As 
a consequence, only the allocator types, that provide sufficient typedefs, are usable 
as allocators for unordered associative containers, while other containers do not have 
this deficiency. In addition to that, the definitions of said typedefs are different 
from ones used in the other containers. This is counterintuitive and introduces a certain 
level of confusion. These issues can be fixed by defining <tt>pointer</tt> and 
<tt>const_pointer</tt> typedefs in terms of <tt>allocator_traits&lt;Allocator&gt;</tt> 
and by defining <tt>reference</tt> and <tt>const_reference</tt> in terms of 
<tt>value_type</tt> as is done in the other containers.
</p>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington.
]</i></p>


<p>
Move to Ready.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>

<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ul>
<li><p>Change 23.5.4.1 [unord.map.overview] paragraph 3 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template &lt;class Key,
            class T,
            class Hash = hash&lt;Key&gt;,
            class Pred = std::equal_to&lt;Key&gt;,
            class Allocator = std::allocator&lt;std::pair&lt;const Key, T&gt; &gt; &gt;
  class unordered_map
  {
  public:
    <i>// types</i>
    typedef Key key_type;
    typedef std::pair&lt;const Key, T&gt; value_type;
    typedef T mapped_type;
    typedef Hash hasher;
    typedef Pred key_equal;
    typedef Allocator allocator_type;
    typedef typename <del>allocator_type</del><ins>allocator_traits&lt;Allocator&gt;</ins>::pointer pointer;
    typedef typename <del>allocator_type</del><ins>allocator_traits&lt;Allocator&gt;</ins>::const_pointer const_pointer;
    typedef <del>typename allocator_type::reference</del><ins>value_type&amp;</ins> reference;
    typedef <del>typename allocator_type::const_reference</del><ins>const value_type&amp;</ins> const_reference;
    typedef <i>implementation-defined</i> size_type;
    typedef <i>implementation-defined</i> difference_type;

    [&hellip;]
  };
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 23.5.5.1 [unord.multimap.overview] paragraph 3 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template &lt;class Key,
            class T,
            class Hash = hash&lt;Key&gt;,
            class Pred = std::equal_to&lt;Key&gt;,
            class Allocator = std::allocator&lt;std::pair&lt;const Key, T&gt; &gt; &gt;
  class unordered_multimap
  {
  public:
    <i>// types</i>
    typedef Key key_type;
    typedef std::pair&lt;const Key, T&gt; value_type;
    typedef T mapped_type;
    typedef Hash hasher;
    typedef Pred key_equal;
    typedef Allocator allocator_type;
    typedef typename <del>allocator_type</del><ins>allocator_traits&lt;Allocator&gt;</ins>::pointer pointer;
    typedef typename <del>allocator_type</del><ins>allocator_traits&lt;Allocator&gt;</ins>::const_pointer const_pointer;
    typedef <del>typename allocator_type::reference</del><ins>value_type&amp;</ins> reference;
    typedef <del>typename allocator_type::const_reference</del><ins>const value_type&amp;</ins> const_reference;
    typedef <i>implementation-defined</i> size_type;
    typedef <i>implementation-defined</i> difference_type;

    [&hellip;]
  };
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 23.5.6.1 [unord.set.overview] paragraph 3 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template &lt;class Key,
            class Hash = hash&lt;Key&gt;,
            class Pred = std::equal_to&lt;Key&gt;,
            class Allocator = std::allocator&lt;Key&gt; &gt;
  class unordered_set
  {
  public:
    <i>// types</i>
    typedef Key key_type;
    typedef Key value_type;
    typedef Hash hasher;
    typedef Pred key_equal;
    typedef Allocator allocator_type;
    typedef typename <del>allocator_type</del><ins>allocator_traits&lt;Allocator&gt;</ins>::pointer pointer;
    typedef typename <del>allocator_type</del><ins>allocator_traits&lt;Allocator&gt;</ins>::const_pointer const_pointer;
    typedef <del>typename allocator_type::reference</del><ins>value_type&amp;</ins> reference;
    typedef <del>typename allocator_type::const_reference</del><ins>const value_type&amp;</ins> const_reference;
    typedef <i>implementation-defined</i> size_type;
    typedef <i>implementation-defined</i> difference_type;

    [&hellip;]
  };
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 23.5.7.1 [unord.multiset.overview] paragraph 3 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template &lt;class Key,
            class Hash = hash&lt;Key&gt;,
            class Pred = std::equal_to&lt;Key&gt;,
            class Allocator = std::allocator&lt;Key&gt; &gt;
  class unordered_multiset
  {
  public:
    <i>// types</i>
    typedef Key key_type;
    typedef Key value_type;
    typedef Hash hasher;
    typedef Pred key_equal;
    typedef Allocator allocator_type;
    typedef typename <del>allocator_type</del><ins>allocator_traits&lt;Allocator&gt;</ins>::pointer pointer;
    typedef typename <del>allocator_type</del><ins>allocator_traits&lt;Allocator&gt;</ins>::const_pointer const_pointer;
    typedef <del>typename allocator_type::reference</del><ins>value_type&amp;</ins> reference;
    typedef <del>typename allocator_type::const_reference</del><ins>const value_type&amp;</ins> const_reference;
    typedef <i>implementation-defined</i> size_type;
    typedef <i>implementation-defined</i> difference_type;

    [&hellip;]
  };
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

</ul>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2052"></a>2052. Mixup between <tt>mapped_type</tt> and <tt>value_type</tt> for associative containers</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.2.4 [associative.reqmts] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Marc Glisse <b>Opened:</b> 2011-05-04 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#associative.reqmts">active issues</a> in [associative.reqmts].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#associative.reqmts">issues</a> in [associative.reqmts].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
(this is basically reopening the first part of issue <a href="lwg-closed.html#2006">2006</a>, as discussed in the thread 
starting at c++std-lib-30698 )
<p/>
Section 23.2.4 [associative.reqmts]
<p/>
In Table 102, several uses of <tt>T</tt> (which means <tt>mapped_type</tt> here) should
be <tt>value_type</tt> instead. This is almost editorial. For instance:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
a_uniq.emplace(args)
</pre><p>
<i>Requires</i>: <tt>T</tt> shall be <tt>EmplaceConstructible</tt> into <tt>X</tt> from args.
<p/>
<i>Effects</i>: Inserts a <tt>T</tt> object <tt>t</tt> constructed with
<tt>std::forward&lt;Args&gt;(args)...</tt> if and only if there is no element in the
container with key equivalent to the key of <tt>t</tt>. The <tt>bool</tt> component of
the returned pair is true if and only if the insertion takes place, and the iterator component 
of the pair points to the element with key equivalent to the key of <tt>t</tt>.
</p></blockquote>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington
]</i></p>


<p>
Not even an exhaustive list of problem locations. No reason to doubt issue.
</p>
<p>
Pablo agrees to provide wording.
</p>

<p><i>[
2011-09-04 Pablo Halpern provides improved wording
]</i></p>




<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>
In both section 23.2.4 [associative.reqmts] Table 102 and 23.2.5 [unord.req], Table 103, make the following text replacements:
</p>

<table border="1">
<tr> <td>Original text, in FDIS</td> <td>Replacement text</td> </tr>

<tr> 
<td><tt>T</tt> is CopyInsertable into <tt>X</tt> and <tt>CopyAssignable</tt>.</td>
<td><tt>value_type</tt> is <tt>CopyInsertable</tt> into <tt>X</tt>, <tt>key_type</tt> is <tt>CopyAssignable</tt>, and
<tt>mapped_type</tt> is <tt>CopyAssignable</tt> (for containers having a <tt>mapped_type</tt>)</td>    
</tr>

<tr> 
<td><tt>T</tt> is <tt>CopyInsertable</tt></td>                                                
<td><tt>value_type</tt> is CopyInsertable</td> 
</tr>

<tr> 
<td><tt>T</tt> shall be <tt>CopyInsertable</tt></td>                                          
<td><tt>value_type</tt> shall be CopyInsertable</td> 
</tr>

<tr> 
<td><tt>T</tt> shall be <tt>MoveInsertable</tt></td>                                          
<td><tt>value_type</tt> shall be MoveInsertable</td> 
</tr>

<tr> 
<td><tt>T</tt> shall be <tt>EmplaceConstructible</tt></td>                                    
<td><tt>value_type</tt> shall be EmplaceConstructible</td> 
</tr>

<tr> 
<td><tt>T</tt> object</td>                                                                    
<td><tt>value_type</tt> object</td> 
</tr>
</table>

<p><i>[
<b>Notes to the editor</b>: The above are carefully selected 
phrases that can be used for global search-and-replace within 
the specified sections without accidentally making changes to 
correct uses <tt>T</tt>.
]</i></p>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2053"></a>2053. Errors in <tt>regex</tt> bitmask types</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 28.5 [re.const] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2011-05-09 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Ready">Ready</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
When <a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3110.html">N3110</a> 
was applied to the WP some redundant "static" keywords were added and one form of initializer 
which isn't valid for enumeration types was replaced with another form of invalid initializer.
</p>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington.
]</i></p>


<p>
Move to Ready.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Change 28.5.1 [re.synopt] as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  namespace regex_constants {
    typedef <i>T1</i> syntax_option_type;
    <del>static </del>constexpr syntax_option_type icase = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr syntax_option_type nosubs = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr syntax_option_type optimize = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr syntax_option_type collate = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr syntax_option_type ECMAScript = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr syntax_option_type basic = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr syntax_option_type extended = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr syntax_option_type awk = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr syntax_option_type grep = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr syntax_option_type egrep = <i>unspecified</i> ;
  }
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 28.5.2 [re.matchflag] as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  namespace regex_constants {
    typedef <i>T2</i> match_flag_type;
    <del>static </del>constexpr match_flag_type match_default<del> = 0</del><ins>{};</ins>
    <del>static </del>constexpr match_flag_type match_not_bol = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr match_flag_type match_not_eol = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr match_flag_type match_not_bow = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr match_flag_type match_not_eow = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr match_flag_type match_any = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr match_flag_type match_not_null = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr match_flag_type match_continuous = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr match_flag_type match_prev_avail = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr match_flag_type format_default<del> = 0</del><ins>{}</ins>;
    <del>static </del>constexpr match_flag_type format_sed = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr match_flag_type format_no_copy = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr match_flag_type format_first_only = <i>unspecified</i> ;
  }
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 28.5.3 [re.err] as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  namespace regex_constants {
    typedef <i>T3</i> error_type;
    <del>static </del>constexpr error_type error_collate = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr error_type error_ctype = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr error_type error_escape = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr error_type error_backref = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr error_type error_brack = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr error_type error_paren = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr error_type error_brace = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr error_type error_badbrace = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr error_type error_range = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr error_type error_space = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr error_type error_badrepeat = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr error_type error_complexity = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <del>static </del>constexpr error_type error_stack = <i>unspecified</i> ;
  }
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2054"></a>2054. <tt>time_point</tt> constructors need to be <tt>constexpr</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.11.6 [time.point] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Anthony Williams <b>Opened:</b> 2011-05-13 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
In 20.11.6 [time.point], <tt>time_point::min()</tt> and <tt>time_point::max()</tt> 
are listed as <tt>constexpr</tt>. However, <tt>time_point</tt> has no <tt>constexpr</tt> constructors, 
so is not a literal type, and so these functions cannot be <tt>constexpr</tt> without adding a 
<tt>constexpr</tt> constructor for implementation purposes.
<p/>
Proposed resolution: Add <tt>constexpr</tt> to the constructors of <tt>time_point</tt>. The effects of
the constructor template basically imply that the member function <tt>time_since_epoch()</tt> is
intended to be <tt>constexpr</tt> as well.
</p>


<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Alter the class template definition in 20.11.6 [time.point] as follows:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class Clock, class Duration = typename Clock::duration&gt;
class time_point {
  [&hellip;]
public:
  <i>// 20.11.6.1, construct:</i>
  <ins>constexpr</ins> time_point(); <i>// has value epoch</i>
  <ins>constexpr</ins> explicit time_point(const duration&amp; d); <i>// same as time_point() + d</i>
  template &lt;class Duration2&gt;
    <ins>constexpr</ins> time_point(const time_point&lt;clock, Duration2&gt;&amp; t);

  <i>// 20.11.6.2, observer:</i>
  <ins>constexpr</ins> duration time_since_epoch() const;
  [&hellip;]
};
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Alter the declarations in 20.11.6.1 [time.point.cons]:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>constexpr</ins> time_point();
</pre><blockquote><p>
-1- <i>Effects</i>: Constructs an object of type <tt>time_point</tt>, initializing <tt>d_</tt> with <tt>duration::zero()</tt>. Such a
<tt>time_point</tt> object represents the epoch.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>constexpr explicit</ins> time_point(const duration&amp; d);
</pre><blockquote><p>
-2- <i>Effects</i>: Constructs an object of type <tt>time_point</tt>, initializing <tt>d_</tt> with <tt>d</tt>. Such a 
<tt>time_point</tt> object represents the epoch <tt>+ d</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class Duration2&gt;
  <ins>constexpr</ins> time_point(const time_point&lt;clock, Duration2&gt;&amp; t);
</pre><blockquote><p>
-3- <i>Remarks</i>: This constructor shall not participate in overload resolution unless <tt>Duration2</tt> is implicitly
convertible to <tt>duration</tt>.
<p/>
-4- <i>Effects</i>: Constructs an object of type <tt>time_point</tt>, initializing <tt>d_</tt> with <tt>t.time_since_epoch()</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Alter the declaration in 20.11.6.2 [time.point.observer]:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>constexpr</ins> duration time_since_epoch() const;
</pre><blockquote><p>
-1- <i>Returns</i>: d_.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2056"></a>2056. <tt>future_errc</tt> enums start with value 0 (invalid value for <tt>broken_promise</tt>)</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.6.1 [futures.overview] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Review">Review</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Nicolai Josuttis <b>Opened:</b> 2011-05-18 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#futures.overview">active issues</a> in [futures.overview].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#futures.overview">issues</a> in [futures.overview].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Review">Review</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
In 30.6.1 [futures.overview] <tt>enum class future_errc</tt> is defined as follows:
</p><blockquote><pre>
enum class future_errc {
  broken_promise,
  future_already_retrieved,
  promise_already_satisfied,
  no_state
};
</pre></blockquote><p>
With this declaration <tt>broken_promise</tt> has value 0, which means that
for a <tt>future_error f</tt> with this code
</p><blockquote><pre>
f.code().operator bool()
</pre></blockquote><p>
yields false, which makes no sense. 0 has to be reserved for "no error".
So, the enums defined here have to start with 1.
<p/>
Howard, Anthony, and Jonathan have no objections.
</p>
<p>[Discussion in Bloomington 2011-08-16]
</p>
<p>
Previous resolution:
</p>
<blockquote class="note">
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>In 30.6.1 [futures.overview], header <tt>&lt;future&gt;</tt> synopsis, fix 
the declaration of <tt>future_errc</tt> as follows:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  enum class future_errc {
    <del>broken_promise,</del>
    future_already_retrieved<ins> = 1</ins>,
    promise_already_satisfied,
    no_state<ins>,
    broken_promise</ins>
  };
  [&hellip;]
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>
Is this resolution overspecified? These seem to be all implementation-defined. How do users add new values and not conflict with established error codes?
</p><p>
PJP proxy says: over-specified. boo.
</p><p>
Other error codes: look for <tt>is_error_code_enum</tt> specializations. Only one exists <tt>io_errc</tt>
</p><p>
Peter: I don't see any other parts of the standard that specify error codes where we have to do something similar.
</p><p>
Suggest that for every place where we add an error code, the following:
</p>
<ol>
   <li> no zero values
   </li><li> all implementation defined values, so future_already_retrieved = implementation_defined
   </li><li> values are distinct
</li></ol>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>
<p>In 30.6.1 [futures.overview], header <tt>&lt;future&gt;</tt> synopsis, fix 
the declaration of <tt>future_errc</tt> as follows:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  enum class future_errc {
    broken_promise<ins> = <var>implementation defined</var></ins>,
    future_already_retrieved<ins> = <var>implementation defined</var></ins>,
    promise_already_satisfied<ins> = <var>implementation defined</var></ins>,
    no_state<ins> = <var>implementation defined</var></ins>
  };
  [&hellip;]
}
</pre></blockquote>
<p>In 30.6.1 [futures.overview], header <tt>&lt;future&gt;</tt> synopsis, add a paragraph after paragraph 2 as follows:</p>

<ins>The enum values of <tt>future_errc</tt> are distinct and not zero.</ins>




<hr>
<h3><a name="2057"></a>2057. <tt>time_point + duration</tt> semantics should be made <tt>constexpr</tt> conforming</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.11.6.5 [time.point.nonmember] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-05-21 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
It has been observed by LWG <a href="lwg-active.html#2054">2054</a> that the specification of some <tt>time_point</tt> member functions
already imply that <tt>time_point</tt> needs to be a literal type and suggests to specify the constructors
and the member function <tt>time_since_epoch()</tt> as <tt>constexpr</tt> functions at the
minimum necessary. Adding further <tt>constexpr</tt> specifier to other operations should
clearly be allowed and should probably be done as well. But to allow for further <tt>constexpr</tt> 
functions in the future requires that their semantics is compatible to operations allowed in <tt>constexpr</tt> 
functions. This is already fine for all operations, except this binary plus operator:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class Clock, class Duration1, class Rep2, class Period2&gt;
time_point&lt;Clock, typename common_type&lt;Duration1, duration&lt;Rep2, Period2&gt;&gt;::type&gt;
operator+(const time_point&lt;Clock, Duration1&gt;&amp; lhs, const duration&lt;Rep2, Period2&gt;&amp; rhs);
</pre><blockquote><p>
-1- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>CT(lhs) += rhs</tt>, where <tt>CT</tt> is the type of the return value.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
<p>
for similar reasons as those mentioned in <a href="lwg-defects.html#2020">2020</a>. The semantics should be fixed to allow
for making them <tt>constexpr</tt>. This issue should also be considered as a placeholder for a request
to make the remaining <tt>time_point</tt> operations similarly <tt>constexpr</tt> as had been done for 
<tt>duration</tt>.
</p>


<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>In 20.11.6.5 [time.point.nonmember], p.1 change the <i>Returns</i> element semantics as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class Clock, class Duration1, class Rep2, class Period2&gt;
time_point&lt;Clock, typename common_type&lt;Duration1, duration&lt;Rep2, Period2&gt;&gt;::type&gt;
operator+(const time_point&lt;Clock, Duration1&gt;&amp; lhs, const duration&lt;Rep2, Period2&gt;&amp; rhs);
</pre><blockquote><p>
-1- <i>Returns</i>: <tt><del>CT(lhs) += rhs</del><ins>CT(lhs.time_since_epoch() + rhs)</ins></tt>, where <tt>CT</tt> 
is the type of the return value.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2058"></a>2058. <tt>valarray</tt> and <tt>begin&#47;end</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 26.6 [numarray] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Review">Review</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Gabriel Dos Reis <b>Opened:</b> 2011-05-17 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#numarray">issues</a> in [numarray].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Review">Review</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
It was just brought to my attention that the pair of functions
<tt>begin&#47;end</tt> were added to <tt>valarray</tt> component.
Those additions strike me as counter to the long standing agreement
that <tt>valarray&lt;T&gt;</tt> is not yet another container. Valarray values
are in general supposed to be treated as a whole, and as such
has a loose specification allowing expression template techniques.
<p/>
The addition of these functions sound to me as making it much harder
(or close to impossible) to effectively use expression templates
as implementation techniques, for no clear benefits.
<p/>
My recommendation would be to drop <tt>begin&#47;end</tt> - or at least for the
<tt>const valarray&lt;T&gt;&amp;</tt> version. I strongly believe those 
are defects.
</p>
<p><i>[This issue was discussed on the library reflector starting from c++std-lib-30761.
Some of the key conclusions of this discussion were:]</i></p>

<ol>
<li>The <tt>begin&#47;end</tt> members were added to allow <tt>valarray</tt> to participate
in the new range-based for-loop by <a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2009/n2930.html">n2930</a>
and not to make them container-like.</li>
<li>It is currently underspecified when the iterator values returned from
<tt>begin&#47;end</tt> become invalidated. To fix this, these invalidation rules need at
least to reflect the invalidation rules of the references returned by the
<tt>operator[]</tt> overloads of <tt>valarray</tt> (26.6.2.4 [valarray.access]).
</li>
<li>A further problem is that the requirements expressed in 26.6.1 [valarray.syn] p.3-5
enforce an implementation to provide further overloads of <tt>begin&#47;end</tt>, if the
replacement type technique is used (which was clearly part of the design of <tt>valarray</tt>).
Providing such additional overloads would also lead to life-time problems in examples like 
<tt>begin(x + y)</tt> where <tt>x</tt> and <tt>y</tt> are expressions involving <tt>valarray</tt> 
objects. To fix this, the <tt>begin&#47;end</tt> overloads could be explicitly excluded from the 
general statements of 26.6.1 [valarray.syn] p.3-5. This would make it unspecified
whether the expression <tt>begin(x + y)</tt> would be well-formed, portable code would
need to write this as <tt>begin(std::valarray&lt;T&gt;(x + y))</tt>.</li>
</ol>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington
]</i></p>


<p>
The intent of these overloads is entirely to support the new for syntax, and not to create
new containers.
</p>

<p>
Stefanus provides suggested wording.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>
In 26.6.1 [valarray.syn]&#47;4, make the following <ins>insertion</ins>:
</p>

<p>
4 Implementations introducing such replacement types shall provide additional functions and operators as
follows:
</p>
<ul>
<li>for every function taking a <tt>const valarray&lt;T&gt;&amp;</tt> <ins>other than <tt>begin</tt> and <tt>end</tt>
(26.6.10 [valarray.range])</ins>, identical functions taking the replacement types shall be added;
</li>
<li>
for every function taking two <tt>const valarray&lt;T&gt;&amp;</tt> arguments, identical functions taking every combination
of <tt>const valarray&lt;T&gt;&amp;</tt> and replacement types shall be added.
</li>
</ul>

<p>
In 26.6.10 [valarray.range], make the following <ins>insertion</ins>:
</p>
<p> 
1 In the <tt>begin</tt> and <tt>end</tt> function templates that follow, <i>unspecified</i>1 is a type that meets
the requirements of a mutable random access iterator (24.2.7) whose <tt>value_type</tt> is the template parameter
<tt>T</tt> and whose <tt>reference</tt> type is <tt>T&amp;</tt>. <i>unspecified</i>2 is a type that meets the
requirements of a constant random access iterator (24.2.7) whose <tt>value_type</tt> is the template parameter
<tt>T</tt> and whose <tt>reference</tt> type is <tt>const T&amp;</tt>.
</p>
<p><ins>
2 The iterators  returned by <tt>begin</tt> and <tt>end</tt> for an array are guaranteed to be valid until the
member function <tt>resize(size_t, T)</tt> (26.6.2.8 [valarray.members]) is called for that array or until
the lifetime of that array ends, whichever happens first.
</ins></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2059"></a>2059. C++0x ambiguity problem with <tt>map::erase</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.4.4 [map] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Review">Review</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Christopher Jefferson <b>Opened:</b> 2011-05-18 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#map">issues</a> in [map].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Review">Review</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
<tt>map::erase</tt> (and several related methods) took an iterator in C++03, but take a <tt>const_iterator</tt> 
in C++0x. This breaks code where the map's <tt>key_type</tt> has a constructor which accepts an iterator 
(for example a template constructor), as the compiler cannot choose between <tt>erase(const key_type&amp;)</tt> 
and <tt>erase(const_iterator)</tt>.</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;map&gt;

struct X
{
  template&lt;typename T&gt;
  X(T&amp;) {}
};

bool operator&lt;(const X&amp;, const X&amp;) { return false; }

void erasor(std::map&lt;X,int&gt;&amp; s, X x)
{
  std::map&lt;X,int&gt;::iterator it = s.find(x);
  if (it != s.end())
    s.erase(it);
}
</pre></blockquote>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington
]</i></p>


<p>
This issue affects only associative container <tt>erase</tt> calls, and is not more general, as these are the
only functions that are also overloaded on another single arguement that might cause confusion - the <tt>erase</tt>
by key method.  The complete resolution should simply restore the <tt>iterator</tt> overload in addition to the
<tt>const_iterator</tt> overload for all eight associative containers. 
</p>

<p>
Proposed wording supplied by Alan Talbot, and moved to Review.
</p>


<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>
Editorial note: The following things are different between 23.2.4 [associative.reqmts] p.8 and
23.2.5 [unord.req] p.10. These should probably be reconciled.
</p>
<blockquote>
<ol>
<li>First uses the convention "denotes";  second uses the convention "is".</li>
<li>First redundantly says: "If no such element exists, returns a.end()." in erase table entry, second does not.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>

<p>
23.2.4 [associative.reqmts] Associative containers
</p>
<p>
8 In Table 102, <tt>X</tt> denotes an associative container class, <tt>a</tt> denotes a value of <tt>X</tt>, <tt>a_uniq</tt>
denotes a value of <tt>X</tt> when <tt>X</tt> supports unique keys, <tt>a_eq</tt> denotes a value of <tt>X</tt> when
<tt>X</tt> supports multiple keys, <tt>u</tt> denotes an identifier, <tt>i</tt> and <tt>j</tt> satisfy input iterator
requirements and refer to elements implicitly convertible to <tt>value_type</tt>, <tt>[i,j)</tt> denotes a valid range,
<tt>p</tt> denotes a valid const iterator to <tt>a</tt>, <tt>q</tt> denotes a valid dereferenceable const iterator to <tt>a</tt>,
<ins><tt>r</tt> denotes a valid dereferenceable iterator to a,</ins> <tt>[q1, q2)</tt> denotes a valid range of const iterators
in <tt>a</tt>, <tt>il</tt> designates an object of type <tt>initializer_list&lt;value_type></tt>, <tt>t</tt> denotes a value of
<tt>X::value_type</tt>, <tt>k</tt> denotes a value of <tt>X::key_type</tt> and <tt>c</tt> denotes a value of type
<tt>X::key_compare</tt>. <tt>A</tt> denotes the storage allocator used by <tt>X</tt>, if any, or
<tt>std::allocator&lt;X::value_type></tt> otherwise, and <tt>m</tt> denotes an allocator of a type convertible to <tt>A</tt>.
</p>

<p>
23.2.4 [associative.reqmts] Associative containers Table 102
</p>
<p>
Add row:
</p>
<ins>
<table border="1">
<tr>
<td><tt>a.erase(r)</tt></td>
<td><tt>iterator</tt></td>
<td>
erases the element pointed to by <tt>r</tt>. Returns an iterator pointing to the element immediately following <tt>r</tt>
prior to the element being erased. If no such element exists, returns <tt>a.end()</tt>.
</td>
<td>amortized constant</td>
</tr>
</table>
</ins>

<p>
23.2.5 [unord.req] Unordered associative containers</p>
<p>
10 In table 103: <tt>X</tt> is an unordered associative container class, <tt>a</tt> is an object of type <tt>X</tt>,
<tt>b</tt> is a possibly const object of type <tt>X</tt>, <tt>a_uniq</tt> is an object of type <tt>X</tt> when
<tt>X</tt> supports unique keys, <tt>a_eq</tt> is an object of type <tt>X</tt> when <tt>X</tt> supports equivalent keys,
<tt>i</tt> and <tt>j</tt> are input iterators that refer to <tt>value_type</tt>, <tt>[i, j)</tt> is a valid range,
<tt>p</tt> and <tt>q2</tt> are valid const iterators to <tt>a</tt>, <tt>q</tt> and <tt>q1</tt> are valid dereferenceable
const iterators to <tt>a</tt>, <ins><tt>r</tt> is a valid dereferenceable iterator to a,</ins> <tt>[q1,q2)</tt> is a
valid range in <tt>a</tt>, <tt>il</tt> designates an object of type <tt>initializer_list&lt;value_type></tt>,
<tt>t</tt> is a value of type <tt>X::value_type</tt>, <tt>k</tt> is a value of type <tt>key_type</tt>, <tt>hf</tt> is a
possibly const value of type <tt>hasher</tt>, <tt>eq</tt> is a possibly const value of type <tt>key_equal</tt>,
<tt>n</tt> is a value of type <tt>size_type</tt>, and <tt>z</tt> is a value of type <tt>float</tt>.
</p>

<p>
23.2.5 [unord.req] Unordered associative containers Table 103
</p>
<p>
Add row:
</p>
<ins>
<table border="1">
<tr>
<td><tt>a.erase(r)</tt></td>
<td><tt>iterator</tt></td>
<td>
Erases the element pointed to by <tt>r</tt>. Returns the iterator immediately following <tt>r</tt> prior to the erasure.
</td>
<td>Average case O(1), worst case O(<tt>a.size()</tt>).</td>
</tr>
</table>
</ins>

<p>
23.4.4.1 [map.overview] Class template map overview p. 2
</p>
<pre>
<ins>iterator erase(iterator position);</ins>
iterator erase(const_iterator position);
size_type erase(const key_type&amp; x);
iterator erase(const_iterator first, const_iterator last);
</pre>

<p>
23.4.5.1 [multimap.overview] Class template multimap overview p. 2
</p>
<pre>
<ins>iterator erase(iterator position);</ins>
iterator erase(const_iterator position);
size_type erase(const key_type&amp; x);
iterator erase(const_iterator first, const_iterator last);
</pre>

<p>
23.4.6.1 [set.overview] Class template set overview p. 2
</p>
<pre>
<ins>iterator erase(iterator position);</ins>
iterator erase(const_iterator position);
size_type erase(const key_type&amp; x);
iterator erase(const_iterator first, const_iterator last);
</pre>

<p>
23.4.7.1 [multiset.overview] Class template multiset overview 
</p>
<pre>
<ins>iterator erase(iterator position);</ins>
iterator erase(const_iterator position);
size_type erase(const key_type&amp; x);
iterator erase(const_iterator first, const_iterator last);
</pre>

<p>
23.5.4.1 [unord.map.overview] Class template unordered_map overview p. 3
</p>
<pre>
<ins>iterator erase(iterator position);</ins>
iterator erase(const_iterator position);
size_type erase(const key_type&amp; x);
iterator erase(const_iterator first, const_iterator last);
</pre>

<p>
23.5.5.1 [unord.multimap.overview] Class template unordered_multimap overview p. 3
</p>
<pre>
<ins>iterator erase(iterator position);</ins>
iterator erase(const_iterator position);
size_type erase(const key_type&amp; x);
iterator erase(const_iterator first, const_iterator last);
</pre>

<p>
23.5.6.1 [unord.set.overview] Class template unordered_set overview p. 3
</p>
<pre>
<ins>iterator erase(iterator position);</ins>
iterator erase(const_iterator position);
size_type erase(const key_type&amp; x);
iterator erase(const_iterator first, const_iterator last);
</pre>


<p>
23.5.7.1 [unord.multiset.overview] Class template unordered_multiset overview p. 3
</p>
<pre>
<ins>iterator erase(iterator position);</ins>
iterator erase(const_iterator position);
size_type erase(const key_type&amp; x);
iterator erase(const_iterator first, const_iterator last);
</pre>

<p>
 [diff.cpp03.containers] C.2.12 Clause 23: containers library 
</p>
<p>
23.2.3, 23.2.4
</p>
<p>
Change: Signature changes: from iterator to const_iterator parameters
</p>
<p>
Rationale: Overspecification. Effects: The signatures of the following member functions changed from
taking an iterator to taking a const_iterator:
</p>
<ul>
<li>insert(iter, val) for vector, deque, list, set, multiset, map, multimap</li>
<li>insert(pos, beg, end) for vector, deque, list, forward_list</li>
<li><del>erase(iter) for set, multiset, map, multimap</del></li>
<li>erase(begin, end) for set, multiset, map, multimap</li>
<li>all forms of list::splice</li>
<li>all forms of list::merge</li>
</ul>
<p>
Valid C++ 2003 code that uses these functions may fail to compile with this International Standard.
</p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2061"></a>2061. <tt>make_move_iterator</tt> and arrays</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 24.3 [iterator.synopsis], 24.5.3 [move.iterators] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Marc Glisse <b>Opened:</b> 2011-05-28 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#iterator.synopsis">issues</a> in [iterator.synopsis].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Ready">Ready</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
The standard library always passes template iterators by value and never by reference, 
which has the nice effect that an array decays to a pointer. There is one exception: 
<tt>make_move_iterator</tt>.
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;iterator&gt;
int main(){
  int a[]={1,2,3,4};
  std::make_move_iterator(a+4);
  std::make_move_iterator(a); // fails here
}
</pre></blockquote>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington.
]</i></p>


<p>
Move to Ready.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Modify the header <tt>&lt;iterator&gt;</tt> synopsis in 24.3 [iterator.synopsis]:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  [&hellip;]
  template &lt;class Iterator&gt;
  move_iterator&lt;Iterator&gt; make_move_iterator(<del>const Iterator&amp;</del><ins>Iterator</ins> i);

  [&hellip;]
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Modify the class template <tt>move_iterator</tt> synopsis in 24.5.3.1 [move.iterator]:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  [&hellip;]
  template &lt;class Iterator&gt;
  move_iterator&lt;Iterator&gt; make_move_iterator(<del>const Iterator&amp;</del><ins>Iterator</ins> i);
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Modify 24.5.3.3.14 [move.iter.nonmember]:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class Iterator&gt;
move_iterator&lt;Iterator&gt; make_move_iterator(<del>const Iterator&amp;</del><ins>Iterator</ins> i);
</pre><blockquote><p>
-3- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>move_iterator&lt;Iterator&gt;(i)</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2062"></a>2062. Effect contradictions w&#47;o no-throw guarantee of <tt>std::function</tt> swaps</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.8.11.2 [func.wrap.func], 20.8.11.2.2 [func.wrap.func.mod] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-05-28 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#func.wrap.func">issues</a> in [func.wrap.func].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
Howard Hinnant observed in reflector message c++std-lib-30841 that 20.8.11.2 [func.wrap.func] 
makes the member swap <tt>noexcept</tt>, even though the non-member swap is not <tt>noexcept</tt>. 
<p/>
The latter was an outcome of the discussions during the Batavia meeting and the Madrid meeting 
involving LWG <a href="lwg-defects.html#1349">1349</a>, which seems to indicate that the remaining <tt>noexcept</tt> 
specifier at the member swap is incorrect and should be removed.
<p/>
But if we allow for a potentially throwing member swap of <tt>std::function</tt>, this causes 
another conflict with the exception specification for the following member function:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class F&gt; function&amp; operator=(reference_wrapper&lt;F&gt; f) <span style="color:#C80000;font-weight:bolder">noexcept</span>;
</pre><blockquote><p>
<i>Effects</i>: <tt>function(f).<span style="color:#C80000;font-weight:bolder">swap</span>(*this);</tt>
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<p>
Note that in this example the sub-expression <tt>function(f)</tt> does not cause any problems,
because of the nothrow-guarantee given in 20.8.11.2.1 [func.wrap.func.con] p. 10. The problem
is located in the usage of the swap which could potentially throw given the general latitude. 
<p/>
So, either the Madrid meeting decision need to be revised (and both member and free swap of 
<tt>std::function</tt> should be noexcept), or this function needs to be adapted as well,
e.g. by taking the exception-specification away or by changing the semantics.
<p/>
One argument for "swap-may-throw" would be to allow for small-object optimization techniques
where the copy of the target may throw. But given the fact that the swap function has been guaranteed 
to be "Throws: Nothing" from TR1 on, it seems to me that that there would still be opportunities to 
perform small-object optimizations just restricted to the set of target copies that cannot throw. 
<p/>
In my opinion member swap of <tt>std::function</tt> has always been intended to be no-throw, because
otherwise there would be no good technical reason to specify the effects of several member 
functions in terms of the "construct-swap" idiom (There are three functions that are defined
this way), which provides the strong exception safety in this case. I suggest to enforce that both 
member swap and non-member swap of <tt>std::function</tt> are nothrow functions as it had been guaranteed 
since TR1 on.
</p>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington
]</i></p>

<p>
Dietmar: May not be swappable in the first place.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair: This is wide contact. Then we should be taking noexcept off instead of putting it on. This is preferred resolution.
</p>
<p>
Pablo: This is bigger issue. Specification of assignment in terms of swap is suspect to begin with. It is over specification.
How this was applied to string is a better example to work from.
</p>
<p>
Pablo: Two problems: inconsistency that should be fixed (neither should have noexcept), the other issues is that assignment
should not be specified in terms of swap. There are cases where assignment should succeed where swap would fail. This is easier
with string as it should follow container rules.
</p>
<p>
<b>Action Item</b> (Alisdair): There are a few more issues found to file.
</p>
<p>
Dave: This is because of allocators? The allocator makes this not work.
</p>
<p>
Howard: There is a type erased allocator in shared_ptr. There is a noexcept allocator in shared_ptr.
</p>
<p>
Pablo: shared_ptr is a different case. There are shared semantics and the allocator does move around.
A function does not have shared semantics.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair: Function objects think they have unique ownership.
</p>
<p>
Howard: In function we specify semantics with copy construction and swap.
</p>
<p>
<b>Action Item</b> (Pablo): Write this up better (why assignment should not be defined in terms of swap)
</p>
<p>
Howard: Not having trouble making function constructor no throw.
</p>
<p>
Dietmar: Function must allocate memory.
</p>
<p>
Howard: Does not put stuff that will throw on copy or swap in small object optimization. Put those on heap.
Storing allocator, but has to be no throw copy constructable.
</p>
<p>
Pablo: Are you allowed to or required to swap or move allocators in case or swap or move.
</p>
<p>
Dave: An allocator that is type erased should be different...
</p>
<p>
Pablo: it is
</p>
<p>
Dave: Do you need to know something about allocator types? But only at construction time.
</p>
<p>
Pablo: You could have allocators that are different types.
</p>
<p>
Dave: Swap is two ended operation.
</p>
<p>
Pablo: Opinion is that both have to say propagate on swap for them to swap.
</p>
<p>
John: It is not arbitrary. If one person says no. No is no.
</p>
<p>
Howard: Find noexcept swap to be very useful. Would like to move in that direction and bring container design along.
</p>
<p>
Dave: If you have something were allocator must not propagate you can detect that at construction time.
</p>
<p>
...
</p>
<p>
Pablo: Need to leave this open and discuss in smaller group.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair: Tried to add boost::any as TR2 proposal and ran into this issue. Only the first place where we run into
issues with type erased allocators. Suggest we move it to open.
</p>
<p>
<b>Action Item</b>: Move to open.
</p>
<p>
<b>Action Item</b> (Pablo works with Howard and Daniel): Address the more fundamental issue
(which may be multiple issues) and write up findings.
</p>

<p><i>[
<b>Original resolution</b>:
]</i></p>

<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Modify the header <tt>&lt;functional&gt;</tt> synopsis in 20.8 [function.objects] as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  [&hellip;]

  template&lt;class R, class... ArgTypes&gt;
  void swap(function&lt;R(ArgTypes...)&gt;&amp;, function&lt;R(ArgTypes...)&gt;&amp;) <ins>noexcept</ins>;

  [&hellip;]
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Modify the class template <tt>function</tt> synopsis in 20.8.11.2 [func.wrap.func] as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  [&hellip;]

  <i>// [func.wrap.func.alg], specialized algorithms:</i>
  template&lt;class R, class... ArgTypes&gt;
  void swap(function&lt;R(ArgTypes...)&gt;&amp;, function&lt;R(ArgTypes...)&gt;&amp;) <ins>noexcept</ins>;

  [&hellip;]
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Modify 20.8.11.2.7 [func.wrap.func.alg] as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class R, class... ArgTypes&gt;
void swap(function&lt;R(ArgTypes...)&gt;&amp; f1, function&lt;R(ArgTypes...)&gt;&amp; f2) <ins>noexcept</ins>;
</pre><blockquote><p>
-1- <i>Effects</i>: <tt>f1.swap(f2);</tt>
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

</ol>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2063"></a>2063. Contradictory requirements for string move assignment</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 21.4 [basic.string] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Howard Hinnant <b>Opened:</b> 2011-05-29 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#basic.string">active issues</a> in [basic.string].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#basic.string">issues</a> in [basic.string].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
21.4.1 [string.require]&#47;p4 says that <tt>basic_string</tt> is an "allocator-aware" 
container and behaves as described in 23.2.1 [container.requirements.general].
<p/>
23.2.1 [container.requirements.general] describes move assignment in p7 and Table 99.
<p/>
If <tt>allocator_traits&lt;allocator_type&gt;::propagate_on_container_move_assignment::value</tt> 
is false, and if the allocators stored in the lhs and rhs sides are not equal, then move 
assigning a string has the same semantics as copy assigning a string as far as resources are 
concerned (resources can not be transferred). And in this event, the lhs may have to acquire 
resources to gain sufficient capacity to store a copy of the rhs.
<p/>
However 21.4.2 [string.cons]&#47;p22 says:
</p><blockquote><pre>
basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp;
operator=(basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp;&amp; str) noexcept;
</pre><blockquote><p>
<i>Effects</i>: If <tt>*this</tt> and <tt>str</tt> are not the same object, modifies <tt>*this</tt> 
as shown in Table 71. [<i>Note</i>: A valid implementation is <tt>swap(str)</tt>. &mdash; <i>end note</i> ]
</p></blockquote></blockquote><p>
These two specifications for <tt>basic_string::operator=(basic_string&amp;&amp;)</tt> are in conflict with 
each other. It is not possible to implement a <tt>basic_string</tt> which satisfies both requirements.
<p/>
Additionally assign from an rvalue <tt>basic_string</tt> is defined as:
</p><blockquote><pre>
basic_string&amp; assign(basic_string&amp;&amp; str) noexcept;
</pre><blockquote><p>
<i>Effects</i>: The function replaces the string controlled by <tt>*this</tt> with a string of length 
<tt>str.size()</tt> whose elements are a copy of the string controlled by <tt>str</tt>. [ <i>Note</i>: A valid 
implementation is <tt>swap(str)</tt>. &mdash; <i>end note</i> ]
</p></blockquote></blockquote><p>
It seems contradictory that this member can be sensitive to <tt>propagate_on_container_swap</tt> instead 
of <tt>propagate_on_container_move_assignment</tt>.  Indeed, there is a very subtle chance for undefined 
behavior here:  If the implementation implements this in terms of <tt>swap</tt>, and if 
<tt>propagate_on_container_swap</tt> is false, and if the two allocators are unequal, the behavior 
is undefined, and will likely lead to memory corruption.  That's a lot to go wrong under a member 
named "assign".
</p>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington
]</i></p>


<p>
Alisdair: Can this be conditional noexcept?
</p>
<p>
Pablo: We said we were not going to put in many conditional noexcepts. Problem is not allocator, but non-normative definition. It says swap is a valid operation which it is not.
</p>
<p>
Dave: Move assignment is not a critical method.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair: Was confusing assignment and construction.
</p>
<p>
Dave: Move construction is critical for efficiency.
</p>
<p>
Kyle: Is it possible to test for noexcept.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair: Yes, query the noexcept operator.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair: Agreed there is a problem that we cannot unconditionally mark these operations as noexcpet.
</p>
<p>
Pablo: How come swap is not defined in alloc
</p>
<p>
Alisdair: It is in utility.
</p>
<p>
Pablo: Swap has a conditional noexcept. Is no throw move constructable, is no throw move assignable.
</p>
<p>
Pablo: Not critical for strings or containers.
</p>
<p>
Kyle: Why?
</p>
<p>
Pablo: They do not use the default swap.
</p>
<p>
Dave: Important for deduction in other types.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair: Would change the policy we adopted during FDIS mode.
</p>
<p>
Pablo: Keep it simple and get some vendor experience.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair: Is this wording correct? Concerned with bullet 2.
</p>
<p>
Pablo: Where does it reference containers section.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair: String is a container.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair: We should not remove redundancy piecemeal.
</p>
<p>
Pablo: I agree. This is a deviation from rest of string. Missing forward reference to containers section.
</p>
<p>
Pablo: To fix section 2. Only the note needs to be removed. The rest needs to be a forward reference to containers.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair: That is a new issue.
</p>
<p>
Pablo: Not really. Talking about adding one sentence, saying that basic string is a container.
</p>
<p>
Dave: That is not just a forward reference, it is a semantic change.
</p>
<p>
PJ: We intended to make it look like a container, but it did not satisfy all the requirements.
</p>
<p>
Pablo: Clause 1 is correct. Clause 2 is removing note and noexcept (do not remove the rest). Clause 3 is correct.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair: Not sure data() is correct (in clause 2).
</p>
<p>
Conclusion: Move to open, Alisdair and Pablo volunteered to provide wording
</p>

<p><i>[
originally proposed wording:
]</i></p>


<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Modify the class template <tt>basic_string</tt> synopsis in 21.4 [basic.string]:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template&lt;class charT, class traits = char_traits&lt;charT&gt;,
    class Allocator = allocator&lt;charT&gt; &gt;
  class basic_string {
  public:
    [&hellip;]
    basic_string&amp; operator=(basic_string&amp;&amp; str) <del>noexcept</del>;
    [&hellip;]
    basic_string&amp; assign(basic_string&amp;&amp; str) <del>noexcept</del>;
    [&hellip;]
  };
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Remove the definition of the <tt>basic_string</tt> move assignment operator from 21.4.2 [string.cons] 
entirely, including Table 71 &mdash; <tt>operator=(const basic_string&lt;charT, traits, Allocator&gt;&amp;&amp;)</tt>.
This is consistent with how we define move assignment for the containers in Clause 23:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<del>basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp;
operator=(basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp;&amp; str) noexcept;</del>
</pre><blockquote><p>
<del>-22- <i>Effects</i>: If <tt>*this</tt> and <tt>str</tt> are not the same object, modifies <tt>*this</tt> as shown 
in Table 71. [ <i>Note</i>: A valid implementation is <tt>swap(str)</tt>. &mdash; <i>end note</i> ]</del>
<p/>
<del>-23- If <tt>*this</tt> and <tt>str</tt> are the same object, the member has no effect.</del>
<p/>
<del>-24- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>*this</tt></del>
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<table border="1">
<caption><del>Table 71 &mdash; <tt>operator=(const basic_string&lt;charT, traits, Allocator&gt;&amp;&amp;)</tt></del></caption>

<tr>
<th><del>Element</del></th>
<th><del>Value</del></th>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><del><tt>data()</tt></del></td>
<td><del>points at the array whose first element was pointed
at by <tt>str.data()</tt></del></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><del><tt>size()</tt></del></td>
<td><del>previous value of <tt>str.size()</tt></del></td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td><del><tt>capacity()</tt></del></td>
<td><del>a value at least as large as <tt>size()</tt></del></td>
</tr>

</table> 
</blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Modify the paragraphs prior to 21.4.6.3 [string::assign] p.3 as indicated (The
first insertion recommends a separate paragraph number for the indicated paragraph):</p>
<blockquote><pre>
basic_string&amp; assign(basic_string&amp;&amp; str) <del>noexcept</del>;
</pre><blockquote><p>
<ins>-?-</ins> <i>Effects</i>: <ins>Equivalent to <tt>*this = std::move(str)</tt>.</ins>
<del>The function replaces the string controlled by <tt>*this</tt> with a string of length 
<tt>str.size()</tt> whose elements are a copy of the string controlled by <tt>str</tt>. 
[ <i>Note</i>: A valid implementation is <tt>swap(str)</tt>. &mdash; <i>end note</i> ]</del>
<p/>
-3- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>*this</tt>
</p></blockquote></blockquote>

</li>
</ol>


<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2064"></a>2064. More <tt>noexcept</tt> issues in <tt>basic_string</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 21.4 [basic.string] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Howard Hinnant <b>Opened:</b> 2011-05-29 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#basic.string">active issues</a> in [basic.string].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#basic.string">issues</a> in [basic.string].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Ready">Ready</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
The following inconsistencies regarding <tt>noexcept</tt> for <tt>basic_string</tt> are noted.
<p/>
Member swap is not marked <tt>noexcept</tt>:
</p><blockquote><pre>
void swap(basic_string&amp; str);
</pre></blockquote><p>
But the global swap is marked <tt>noexcept</tt>:
</p><blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
void swap(basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; lhs,
          basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; rhs) <span style="color:#C80000;font-weight:bolder">noexcept</span>;
</pre></blockquote><p>
But only in the definition, not in the synopsis.
<p/>
All comparison operators are marked <tt>noexcept</tt> in their definitions, but not in the synopsis.
<p/>
The compare function that takes a pointer:
</p><blockquote><pre>
int compare(const charT *s) const;
</pre></blockquote><p>
is not marked <tt>noexcept</tt>. But some of the comparison functions which are marked <tt>noexcept</tt> 
(only in their definition) are specified to call the throwing compare operator:
</p><blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
bool operator==(const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; lhs,
                const charT* rhs) <span style="color:#C80000;font-weight:bolder">noexcept</span>;
</pre><blockquote><p>
<i>Returns</i>: <tt>lhs.compare(rhs) == 0</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
<p>
All functions with a narrow contract should not be declared as <tt>noexcept</tt> according to
the guidelines presented in <a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2011/n3279.pdf">n3279</a>.
Among these narrow contract functions are the <tt>swap</tt> functions (23.2.1 [container.requirements.general] p. 8) 
and functions with non-<tt>NULL</tt> <tt>const charT*</tt> parameters.
</p>
<p><i>[2011-06-08 Daniel provides wording]</i></p>


<p><i>[Bloomington, 2011]</i></p>

<p>
Move to Ready
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS. Both move-assignment operator and the moving <tt>assign</tt>
function are not touched by this issue, because they are handled separately by issue <a href="lwg-active.html#2063">2063</a>.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Modify the header <tt>&lt;string&gt;</tt> synopsis in 21.3 [string.classes] as 
indicated (Rationale: Adding <tt>noexcept</tt> to these specific overloads is in sync with
applying the same rule to specific overloads of the member functions <tt>find</tt>, <tt>compare</tt>, etc.
This approach deviates from that taken in <a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2011/n3279.pdf">n3279</a>,
but seems more consistent given similar application for comparable member functions):</p>

<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;initializer_list&gt;

namespace std {

  [&hellip;]
  template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
    bool operator==(const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; lhs,
                    const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; rhs) <ins>noexcept</ins>;
  [&hellip;]
  template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
    bool operator!=(const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; lhs,
                    const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; rhs) <ins>noexcept</ins>;
  [&hellip;]

  template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
    bool operator&lt;(const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; lhs,
                   const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; rhs) <ins>noexcept</ins>;
  [&hellip;]
  template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
    bool operator&gt;(const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; lhs,
                   const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; rhs) <ins>noexcept</ins>;
  [&hellip;]

  template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
    bool operator&lt;=(const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; lhs,
                    const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; rhs) <ins>noexcept</ins>;
  [&hellip;]
  template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
    bool operator&gt;=(const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; lhs,
                    const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; rhs) <ins>noexcept</ins>;
  [&hellip;]
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Modify the class template <tt>basic_string</tt> synopsis in 21.4 [basic.string] as 
indicated (Remark 1: The <tt>noexcept</tt> at the move-constructor is fine, because even for a
small-object optimization there is no problem here, because <tt>basic_string::value_type</tt>
is required to be a non-array POD as of 21.1 [strings.general] p1, Remark 2: This
proposal removes the <tt>noexcept</tt> at single character overloads of <tt>find</tt>, <tt>rfind</tt>,
etc. because they are defined in terms of potentially allocating functions. It seems like
an additional issue to me to change the semantics in terms of non-allocating functions and
adding <tt>noexcept</tt> instead):</p>

<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template&lt;class charT, class traits = char_traits&lt;charT&gt;,
    class Allocator = allocator&lt;charT&gt; &gt;
  class basic_string {
  public:
    [&hellip;]
    <i>// [string.ops], string operations:</i>
    [&hellip;]
    size_type find (charT c, size_type pos = 0) const <del>noexcept</del>;
    [&hellip;]
    size_type rfind(charT c, size_type pos = npos) const <del>noexcept</del>;
    [&hellip;]
    size_type find_first_of(charT c, size_type pos = 0) const <del>noexcept</del>;
    [&hellip;]
    size_type find_last_of (charT c, size_type pos = npos) const <del>noexcept</del>;
    [&hellip;]
    size_type find_first_not_of(charT c, size_type pos = 0) const <del>noexcept</del>;
    [&hellip;]
    size_type find_last_not_of (charT c, size_type pos = npos) const <del>noexcept</del>;
    [&hellip;]
  };
}
</pre></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Modify 21.4.7.2 [string::find] before p5 and before p7 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
size_type find(const charT* s, size_type pos = 0) const <del>noexcept</del>;
[&hellip;]
size_type find(charT c, size_type pos = 0) const <del>noexcept</del>;
</pre><blockquote><p>
-7- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>find(basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;(1,c), pos)</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Modify 21.4.7.3 [string::rfind] before p7 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
size_type rfind(charT c, size_type pos = npos) const <del>noexcept</del>;
</pre><blockquote><p>
-7- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>rfind(basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;(1,c),pos)</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Modify 21.4.7.4 [string::find.first.of] before p7 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
size_type find_first_of(charT c, size_type pos = 0) const <del>noexcept</del>;
</pre><blockquote><p>
-7- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>find_first_of(basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;(1,c), pos)</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Modify 21.4.7.5 [string::find.last.of] before p7 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
size_type find_last_of(charT c, size_type pos = npos) const <del>noexcept</del>;
</pre><blockquote><p>
-7- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>find_last_of(basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;(1,c),pos)</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Modify 21.4.7.6 [string::find.first.not.of] before p7 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
size_type find_first_not_of(charT c, size_type pos = 0) const <del>noexcept</del>;
</pre><blockquote><p>
-7- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>find_first_not_of(basic_string(1, c), pos)</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Modify 21.4.7.7 [string::find.last.not.of] before p7 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
size_type find_last_not_of(charT c, size_type pos = npos) const <del>noexcept</del>;
</pre><blockquote><p>
-7- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>find_last_not_of(basic_string(1, c), pos)</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Modify 21.4.8.2 [string::operator==] before p2+p3 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
bool operator==(const charT* lhs,
                const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; rhs) <del>noexcept</del>;

[&hellip;]
				
template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
bool operator==(const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; lhs,
                const charT* rhs) <del>noexcept</del>;
</pre></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Modify 21.4.8.3 [string::op!=] before p2+p3 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
bool operator!=(const charT* lhs,
                const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; rhs) <del>noexcept</del>;

[&hellip;]
				
template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
bool operator!=(const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; lhs,
                const charT* rhs) <del>noexcept</del>;
</pre></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Modify 21.4.8.4 [string::op&lt;] before p2+p3 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
bool operator&lt;(const charT* lhs,
               const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; rhs) <del>noexcept</del>;

[&hellip;]
				
template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
bool operator&lt;(const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; lhs,
               const charT* rhs) <del>noexcept</del>;
</pre></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Modify 21.4.8.5 [string::op&gt;] before p2+p3 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
bool operator&gt;(const charT* lhs,
               const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; rhs) <del>noexcept</del>;

[&hellip;]
				
template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
bool operator&gt;(const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; lhs,
               const charT* rhs) <del>noexcept</del>;
</pre></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Modify 21.4.8.6 [string::op&lt;=] before p2+p3 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
bool operator&lt;=(const charT* lhs,
                const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; rhs) <del>noexcept</del>;

[&hellip;]
				
template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
bool operator&lt;=(const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; lhs,
                const charT* rhs) <del>noexcept</del>;
</pre></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Modify 21.4.8.7 [string::op&gt;=] before p2+p3 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
bool operator&gt;=(const charT* lhs,
                const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; rhs) <del>noexcept</del>;

[&hellip;]
				
template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
bool operator&gt;=(const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; lhs,
                const charT* rhs) <del>noexcept</del>;
</pre></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Modify 21.4.8.8 [string.special] as indicated (Remark: The change of
the semantics guarantees as of 17.5.1.4 [structure.specifications] p4 that 
the "Throws: Nothing" element of member swap is implied):</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class charT, class traits, class Allocator&gt;
  void swap(basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; lhs,
    basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; rhs) <del>noexcept</del>;
</pre><blockquote><p>
-1- Effects: <ins>Equivalent to</ins> <tt>lhs.swap(rhs);</tt>
</p></blockquote></blockquote>

</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2065"></a>2065. Minimal allocator interface</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 17.6.3.5 [allocator.requirements] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2011-06-06 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#allocator.requirements">active issues</a> in [allocator.requirements].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#allocator.requirements">issues</a> in [allocator.requirements].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Ready">Ready</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
The example in 17.6.3.5 [allocator.requirements] says <tt>SimpleAllocator</tt> satisfies
the requirements of Table 28 &mdash; Allocator requirements, but it doesn't support comparison 
for equality&#47;inequality.
</p>

<p><i>[Bloomington, 2011]</i></p>

<p>
Move to Ready
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Modify the example in 17.6.3.5 [allocator.requirements] p5 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><p>
-5- [&hellip;]
<p/>
[ <i>Example</i>: the following is an allocator class template supporting the minimal interface 
that satisfies the requirements of Table 28:
</p><blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class Tp&gt;
struct SimpleAllocator {
  typedef Tp value_type;
  SimpleAllocator(<i>ctor args</i>);
  template &lt;class T&gt; SimpleAllocator(const SimpleAllocator&lt;T&gt;&amp; other);
  Tp *allocate(std::size_t n);
  void deallocate(Tp *p, std::size_t n);
};

<ins>template &lt;class T, class U&gt;
bool operator==(const SimpleAllocator&lt;T&gt;&amp;, const SimpleAllocator&lt;U&gt;&amp;);
template &lt;class T, class U&gt;
bool operator!=(const SimpleAllocator&lt;T&gt;&amp;, const SimpleAllocator&lt;U&gt;&amp;);</ins>
</pre></blockquote><p>
&mdash; <i>end example</i> ]
</p></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2066"></a>2066. Missing specification of <tt>vector::resize(size_type)</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.3.6.3 [vector.capacity] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Resolved">Tentatively Resolved</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Rani Sharoni <b>Opened:</b> 2011-03-29 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#vector.capacity">active issues</a> in [vector.capacity].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#vector.capacity">issues</a> in [vector.capacity].</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
In C++1x (N3090) there are two version of <tt>vector::resize</tt> &mdash; 23.3.6.3 [vector.capacity]:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
void resize(size_type sz);
void resize(size_type sz, const T&amp; c);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
The text in 23.3.6.3 [vector.capacity]&#47;12 only mentions "no effects on throw" for the
two args version of resize:
</p><blockquote><p>
<i>Requires</i>: If an exception is thrown other than by the move constructor
of a non-<tt>CopyConstructible</tt> <tt>T</tt> there are no effects.
</p></blockquote><p>
This seems like unintentional oversight since <tt>resize(size)</tt> is
semantically the same as <tt>resize(size, T())</tt>.
Additionally, the C++03 standard only specify single version of resize
with default for the second argument - 23.2.4:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
void resize(size_type sz, T c = T());
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
Therefore not requiring same guarantees for both version of resize is
in fact a regression.
</p>

<p><i>[2011-06-12: Daniel comments]</i></p>


<p>The proposed resolution for issue <a href="lwg-active.html#2033">2033</a> should solve this issue as well.</p>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington
]</i></p>


<p>
This issue will be resolved by issue <a href="lwg-active.html#2033">2033</a>, and closed when this issue is applied. 
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>Apply the proposed resolution of issue <a href="lwg-active.html#2033">2033</a></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2067"></a>2067. <tt>packaged_task</tt> should have deleted copy c'tor with const parameter</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.6.9 [futures.task] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-06-16 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#futures.task">issues</a> in [futures.task].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Ready">Ready</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
Class template <tt>packaged_task</tt> is a move-only type with the following form of the
deleted copy operations:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
packaged_task(packaged_task&amp;) = delete;
packaged_task&amp; operator=(packaged_task&amp;) = delete;
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
Note that the argument types are non-const. This does not look like a typo to me,
this form seems to exist from the very first proposing paper on 
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2276.html">N2276</a>.
Using either of form of the copy-constructor did not make much difference before the 
introduction of defaulted special member functions, but it makes now an observable 
difference. This was brought to my attention by a question on a German C++ newsgroup 
where the question was raised why the following code does not compile on a recent
gcc:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;utility&gt;
#include &lt;future&gt;
#include &lt;iostream&gt;
#include &lt;thread&gt;

int main(){
  std::packaged_task&lt;void()&gt; someTask([]{ std::cout &lt;&lt; std::this_thread::get_id() &lt;&lt; std::endl; });
  std::thread someThread(std::move(someTask)); // <span style="color:#C80000">Error here</span>
  // Remainder omitted
}
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
It turned out that the error was produced by the instantiation of some return type
of <tt>std::bind</tt> which used a defaulted copy-constructor, which leads to a
const declaration conflict with [class.copy] p8.
<p/>
Some aspects of this problem are possibly core-language related, but I consider it
more than a service to programmers, if the library would declare the usual form of
the copy operations (i.e. those with const first parameter type) as deleted for
<tt>packaged_task</tt> to prevent such problems.
<p/>
A similar problem exists for class template <tt>basic_ostream</tt> in 27.7.3.1 [ostream]:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template &lt;class charT, class traits = char_traits&lt;charT&gt; &gt;
  class basic_ostream : virtual public basic_ios&lt;charT,traits&gt; {
    [&hellip;]

    // 27.7.3.3 Assign/swap
    basic_ostream&amp; operator=(basic_ostream&amp; rhs) = delete;
    basic_ostream&amp; operator=(const basic_ostream&amp;&amp; rhs);
    void swap(basic_ostream&amp; rhs);
};
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
albeit this could be considered as an editorial swap of copy and move
assignment operator, I suggest to fix this as part of this issue as well.
</p>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington.
]</i></p>


<p>
Move to Ready.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Modify the class template <tt>basic_ostream</tt> synopsis in 27.7.3.1 [ostream]
as indicated (Note: The prototype signature of the move assignment operator in 27.7.3.3 [ostream.assign]
is fine):</p>

<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template &lt;class charT, class traits = char_traits&lt;charT&gt; &gt;
  class basic_ostream : virtual public basic_ios&lt;charT,traits&gt; {
    [&hellip;]

    // 27.7.3.3 Assign/swap
    basic_ostream&amp; operator=(<ins>const</ins> basic_ostream&amp; rhs) = delete;
    basic_ostream&amp; operator=(<del>const</del> basic_ostream&amp;&amp; rhs);
    void swap(basic_ostream&amp; rhs);
};
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Modify the class template <tt>packaged_task</tt> synopsis in 30.6.9 [futures.task] p2
as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template&lt;class&gt; class packaged_task; <i>// undefined</i>

  template&lt;class R, class... ArgTypes&gt;
  class packaged_task&lt;R(ArgTypes...)&gt; {
  public:
    [&hellip;]
  
    <i>// no copy</i>
    packaged_task(<ins>const</ins> packaged_task&amp;) = delete;
    packaged_task&amp; operator=(<ins>const</ins> packaged_task&amp;) = delete;
    
    [&hellip;]
  };
  [&hellip;]
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2069"></a>2069. Inconsistent exception spec for <tt>basic_string</tt> move constructor</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 21.4.2 [string.cons] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Bo Persson <b>Opened:</b> 2011-07-01 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Ready">Ready</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
Sub-clause 21.4.2 [string.cons] contains these constructors in paragraphs 2 and 3:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
basic_string(const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; str);
basic_string(basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp;&amp; str) noexcept;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-3- <i>Throws</i>: The second form throws nothing if the allocator's move constructor throws nothing.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
<p>
How can it <i>ever</i> throw anything if it is marked <tt>noexcept</tt>?
</p>
<p><i>[2011-07-11: Daniel comments and suggests wording changes]</i></p>

<p>
Further, according to paragraph 18 of the same sub-clause:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
basic_string(const basic_string&amp; str, const Allocator&amp; alloc);
basic_string(basic_string&amp;&amp; str, const Allocator&amp; alloc);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-18- <i>Throws</i>: The second form throws nothing if <tt>alloc == str.get_allocator()</tt> 
unless the copy constructor for <tt>Allocator</tt> throws.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<p>
The constraint &quot;unless the copy constructor for <tt>Allocator</tt> throws&quot;
is redundant, because according to Table 28 &mdash; Allocator requirements, the expressions
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
X a1(a);
X a(b);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
impose the requirement: &quot;Shall not exit via an exception&quot;.
</p>

<p><i>[
2011 Bloomington.
]</i></p>


<p>
Move to Ready.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change 21.4.2 [string.cons] p3 as indicated (This move constructor has a wide
contract and is therefore safely marked as <tt>noexcept</tt>):</p>

<blockquote><pre>
basic_string(const basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; str);
basic_string(basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp;&amp; str) noexcept;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-2- <i>Effects</i>: Constructs an object of class <tt>basic_string</tt> as indicated in Table 64. 
In the second form, <tt>str</tt> is left in a valid state with an unspecified value.
<p/>
<del>-3- <i>Throws</i>: The second form throws nothing if the allocator's move constructor throws nothing.</del>
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 21.4.2 [string.cons] p18 as indicated (This move-like constructor may throw,
if the allocators don't compare equal, but not because of a potentially throwing allocator
copy constructor, only because the allocation attempt may fail and throw an exception):</p>

<blockquote><pre>
basic_string(const basic_string&amp; str, const Allocator&amp; alloc);
basic_string(basic_string&amp;&amp; str, const Allocator&amp; alloc);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-18- <i>Throws</i>: The second form throws nothing if <tt>alloc == str.get_allocator()</tt> 
<del>unless the copy constructor for <tt>Allocator</tt> throws</del>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2070"></a>2070. <tt>allocate_shared</tt> should use <tt>allocator_traits&lt;A&gt;::construct</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.7.2.2.6 [util.smartptr.shared.create] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2011-07-11 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
20.7.2.2.6 [util.smartptr.shared.create] says:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
-2- <i>Effects</i>: Allocates memory suitable for an object of type <tt>T</tt> and constructs an object in that memory
via the placement new expression <tt>::new (pv) T(std::forward&lt;Args&gt;(args)...)</tt>. The template
<tt>allocate_shared</tt> uses a copy of a to allocate memory. If an exception is thrown, the functions have
no effect.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
This explicitly requires placement new rather than using
<tt>allocator_traits&lt;A&gt;::construct(a, (T*)pv, std::forward&lt;Args&gt;(args)...)</tt>
In most cases that would result in the same placement new expression,
but would allow more control over how the object is constructed e.g.
using <tt>scoped_allocator_adaptor</tt> to do uses-allocator construction, or
using an allocator declared as a friend to construct objects with no
public constructors.
</p>

<p><i>[
2011-08-16 Bloomington:
]</i></p>

<p>
Agreed to fix in principle, but believe that <tt>make_shared</tt> and
<tt>allocate_shared</tt> have now diverged enough that their descriptions
should be separated.  Pablo and Stefanus to provide revised wording.
</p>

<p><strong>Daniel's (old) proposed resolution:</strong></p>
<blockquote class="note">
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change the following paragraphs of 20.7.2.2.6 [util.smartptr.shared.create] as indicated (The suggested
removal of the last sentence of p1 is not strictly required to resolve this issue, but is still recommended,
because it does not say anything new but may give the impression that it says something new):
</p><blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class T, class... Args&gt; shared_ptr&lt;T&gt; make_shared(Args&amp;&amp;... args);
template&lt;class T, class A, class... Args&gt;
  shared_ptr&lt;T&gt; allocate_shared(const A&amp; a, Args&amp;&amp;... args);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-1- <i>Requires</i>: <ins>For the template <tt>make_shared</tt>, t</ins><del>T</del>he expression 
<tt>::new (pv) T(std::forward&lt;Args&gt;(args)...)</tt>, where <tt>pv</tt> 
has type <tt>void*</tt> and points to storage suitable to hold an object of type <tt>T</tt>, shall be well 
formed. <ins>For the template <tt>allocate_shared</tt>, the expression 
<tt>allocator_traits&lt;A&gt;::construct(a, pt, std::forward&lt;Args&gt;(args)...)</tt>,
where <tt>pt</tt> has type <tt>T*</tt> and points to storage suitable to hold an object
of type <tt>T</tt>, shall be well formed.</ins> <tt>A</tt> shall be an allocator ([allocator.requirements]). 
<del>The copy constructor and destructor of  <tt>A</tt> shall not throw exceptions.</del>
<p/>
-2- <i>Effects</i>: Allocates memory suitable for an object of type <tt>T</tt> and constructs an object in 
that memory<ins>. The template <tt>make_shared</tt> constructs the object</ins> via the placement new expression 
<tt>::new (pv) T(std::forward&lt;Args&gt;(args)...)</tt>. The template <tt>allocate_shared</tt> uses a copy 
of <tt>a</tt> to allocate memory<ins> and constructs the object by calling <tt>allocator_traits&lt;A&gt;::construct(a, pt,
std::forward&lt;Args&gt;(args)...)</tt></ins>. If an exception is thrown, the functions have no effect.
<p/>
-3- <i>Returns</i>: A <tt>shared_ptr</tt> instance that stores and owns the address of the newly constructed 
object of type <tt>T</tt>.
<p/>
-4- <i>Postconditions</i>: <tt>get() != 0 &amp;&amp; use_count() == 1</tt>
<p/>
-5- <i>Throws</i>: <tt>bad_alloc</tt>, or<ins>, for the template <tt>make_shared</tt>, an exception thrown from
the constructor of <tt>T</tt>, or, for the template <tt>allocate_shared</tt>,</ins> an exception thrown from 
<tt>A::allocate</tt> or <ins>from <tt>allocator_traits&lt;A&gt;::construct</tt></ins><del>from the constructor of 
<tt>T</tt></del>.
<p/>
-6- <i>Remarks</i>: Implementations are encouraged, but not required, to perform no more than one memory
allocation. [ <i>Note</i>: This provides efficiency equivalent to an intrusive smart pointer. &mdash; <i>end note</i> ]
<p/>
-7- [ <i>Note</i>: These functions will typically allocate more memory than <tt>sizeof(T)</tt> to allow for internal
bookkeeping structures such as the reference counts. &mdash; <i>end note</i> ]
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>

<p><i>[2011-12-04: Jonathan and Daniel improve wording]</i></p>


<p>See also c++std-lib-31796</p>






<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change the following paragraphs of 20.7.2.2.6 [util.smartptr.shared.create] as indicated:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class T, class... Args&gt; shared_ptr&lt;T&gt; make_shared(Args&amp;&amp;... args);
<del>template&lt;class T, class A, class... Args&gt;
  shared_ptr&lt;T&gt; allocate_shared(const A&amp; a, Args&amp;&amp;... args);</del>
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
<del>-1- <i>Requires</i>: The expression <tt>::new (pv) T(std::forward&lt;Args&gt;(args)...)</tt>, where <tt>pv</tt> 
has type <tt>void*</tt> and points to storage suitable to hold an object of type <tt>T</tt>, shall be well 
formed. <tt>A</tt> shall be an allocator (17.6.3.5 [allocator.requirements]). The copy constructor 
and destructor of <tt>A</tt> shall not throw exceptions.</del>
<p/>
-2- <i>Effects</i>: <ins>Equivalent to</ins>
</p>
<blockquote><pre> 
<ins>return allocate_shared&lt;T&gt;(allocator&lt;T&gt;(), std::forward&lt;Args&gt;(args)...);</ins>
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
<del>Allocates memory suitable for an object of type <tt>T</tt> 
and constructs an object in that memory via the placement new expression 
<tt>::new (pv) T(std::forward&lt;Args&gt;(args)...)</tt>. The template <tt>allocate_shared</tt> uses a copy 
of <tt>a</tt> to allocate memory. If an exception is thrown, the functions have no effect.</del>
<p/>
<ins>-?- <i>Remarks</i>: An implementation may meet the effects (and the implied guarantees) without 
creating the allocator object [<i>Note</i>: That is, user-provided specializations of <tt>std::allocator</tt>
may not be instantiated, the expressions <tt>::new (pv) T(std::forward&lt;Args&gt;(args)...)</tt> and 
<tt>pv-&gt;~T()</tt> may be evaluated directly &mdash; <i>end note</i>].</ins>
<p/>
<del>-3- <i>Returns</i>: A <tt>shared_ptr</tt> instance that stores and owns the address of the newly constructed 
object of type <tt>T</tt>.</del>
<p/>
<del>-4- <i>Postconditions</i>: <tt>get() != 0 &amp;&amp; use_count() == 1</tt></del>
<p/>
<del>-5- <i>Throws</i>: <tt>bad_alloc</tt>, or an exception thrown from <tt>A::allocate</tt> or from the 
constructor of <tt>T</tt>.</del>
<p/>
<del>-6- <i>Remarks</i>: Implementations are encouraged, but not required, to perform no more than one memory
allocation. [<i>Note</i>: This provides efficiency equivalent to an intrusive smart pointer. &mdash; <i>end note</i>]</del>
<p/>
<del>-7- [<i>Note</i>: These functions will typically allocate more memory than <tt>sizeof(T)</tt> to allow 
for internal bookkeeping structures such as the reference counts. &mdash; <i>end note</i>]</del>
</p>
</li>
<li><p>
Add the following set of <ins>new paragraphs</ins> immediately following the previous paragraph 7 of
20.7.2.2.6 [util.smartptr.shared.create]:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class T, class A, class... Args&gt;
  shared_ptr&lt;T&gt; allocate_shared(const A&amp; a, Args&amp;&amp;... args);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
-?- <i>Requires</i>: The expressions 
<tt>allocator_traits&lt;A&gt;::construct(b, pt, std::forward&lt;Args&gt;(args)...)</tt> and
<tt>allocator_traits&lt;A&gt;::destroy(b, pt)</tt> shall be well-formed and well-defined, 
where <tt>b</tt> has type <tt>A</tt> and is a copy of <tt>a</tt> and where <tt>pt</tt> 
has type <tt>T*</tt> and points to storage suitable to hold an object of type <tt>T</tt>. 
<tt>A</tt> shall meet the allocator requirements (17.6.3.5 [allocator.requirements]). 
<p/>
-?- <i>Effects</i>: Uses an object <tt>a2</tt> 
of type <tt>allocator_traits&lt;A&gt;::rebind_alloc&lt;<i>unspecified</i>&gt;</tt> that compares equal to 
<tt>a</tt> to allocate memory suitable for an object of type <tt>T</tt>. 
Uses a copy <tt>b</tt> of type <tt>A</tt> from <tt>a</tt> to construct an object of type <tt>T</tt> in 
that memory by calling <tt>allocator_traits&lt;A&gt;::construct(b, pt, std::forward&lt;Args&gt;(args)...)</tt>. 
If an exception is thrown, the function has no effect.
<p/>
-?- <i>Returns</i>: A <tt>shared_ptr</tt> instance that stores and owns the address of the newly constructed 
object of type <tt>T</tt>. When ownership is given up, the effects are as follows: Uses a copy <tt>b2</tt> 
of type <tt>A</tt> from <tt>a</tt> to destruct an object of type <tt>T</tt> by calling 
<tt>allocator_traits&lt;A&gt;::destroy(b2, pt2)</tt> where <tt>pt2</tt> has type <tt>T*</tt> 
and refers to the newly constructed object. Then uses an object of type
<tt>allocator_traits&lt;A&gt;::rebind_alloc&lt;<i>unspecified</i>&gt;</tt> that compares equal to 
<tt>a</tt> to deallocate the allocated memory.
<p/>
-?- <i>Postconditions</i>: <tt>get() != 0 &amp;&amp; use_count() == 1</tt>
<p/>
-?- <i>Throws</i>: Nothing unless memory allocation or <tt>allocator_traits&lt;A&gt;::construct</tt> 
throws an exception.
<p/>
-?- <i>Remarks</i>: Implementations are encouraged, but not required, to perform no more than one memory 
allocation. [<i>Note</i>: Such an implementation provides efficiency equivalent to an intrusive smart 
pointer. &mdash; <i>end note</i>]
<p/>
-?- [<i>Note</i>: This function will typically allocate more memory than <tt>sizeof(T)</tt> to allow for internal
bookkeeping structures such as the reference counts. &mdash; <i>end note</i>]
</p>
</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2071"></a>2071. <tt>std::valarray</tt> move-assignment</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 26.6.2.3 [valarray.assign] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Paolo Carlini <b>Opened:</b> 2011-05-05 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#valarray.assign">issues</a> in [valarray.assign].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Yesterday I noticed that the language we have in the FDIS about <tt>std::valarray</tt> move assignment 
is inconsistent with the resolution of LWG 675. Indeed, we guarantee constant complexity (vs linear 
complexity). We also want it to be noexcept, that is more subtle, but again it's at variance with all 
the containers.
<p/>
Also, even if we suppose that LWG <a href="lwg-defects.html#675">675</a> applies only to the containers proper, I don't think the current 
"as if by calling resize(v.size())" is internally consistent with the noexcept requirement.
<p/>
So, what do we really want for <tt>std::valarray</tt>? Shall we maybe just strike or fix the as-if, consider it 
some sort of pasto from the copy-assignment text, thus keep the noexcept and constant complexity requirements 
(essentially the whole operation would boild down to a swap of POD data members). Or LWG <a href="lwg-defects.html#675">675</a> should be 
explicitly extended to <tt>std::valarray</tt> too? In that case both noexcept and constant complexity 
would go, I think, and the operation would boil down to the moral equivalent of <tt>clear()</tt> (which 
doesn't really exist in this case) + <tt>swap</tt>?
</p>

<p>
Howard: I agree the current wording is incorrect.  The complexity should be linear in <tt>size()</tt> (not 
<tt>v.size()</tt>) because the first thing this operator needs to do is <tt>resize(0)</tt> (or <tt>clear()</tt> 
as you put it).
<p/>
I think we can keep the <tt>noexcept</tt>.
<p/>
As for proper wording, here's a first suggestion:
</p><blockquote><p>
<i>Effects</i>: <tt>*this</tt> obtains the value of <tt>v</tt>. The value of <tt>v</tt> after the assignment 
is not specified.
<p/>
<i>Complexity</i>: linear.
</p></blockquote><p>
</p>

<p>
See also reflector discussion startin with c++std-lib-30690.
</p>


<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<p>In 26.6.2.3 [valarray.assign] update as follows:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
valarray&lt;T&gt;&amp; operator=(valarray&lt;T&gt;&amp;&amp; v) noexcept;
</pre><blockquote><p>
3 <i>Effects</i>: <tt>*this</tt> obtains the value of <tt>v</tt>. <del>If the length of <tt>v</tt> 
is not equal to the length of <tt>*this</tt>, resizes <tt>*this</tt> to make the two arrays the 
same length, as if by calling <tt>resize(v.size())</tt>, before performing the assignment.</del><ins>The 
value of <tt>v</tt> after the assignment is not specified.</ins>
<p/>
4 <i>Complexity</i>: <del>Constant</del><ins>Linear</ins>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2072"></a>2072. Unclear wording about capacity of temporary buffers</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.6.11 [temporary.buffer] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Kazutoshi Satoda <b>Opened:</b> 2011-08-10 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#temporary.buffer">issues</a> in [temporary.buffer].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
According to 20.6.11 [temporary.buffer] p1+2:

</p><blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class T&gt;
pair&lt;T*, ptrdiff_t&gt; get_temporary_buffer(ptrdiff_t n) noexcept;
</pre><blockquote><p>
-1- <i>Effects</i>: Obtains a pointer to storage sufficient to store up to <tt>n</tt> adjacent <tt>T</tt> 
objects. It is implementation-defined whether over-aligned types are supported (3.11).
<p/>
-2- <i>Returns</i>: A pair containing the buffer's address and capacity (in the units of <tt>sizeof(T)</tt>), 
or a pair of 0 values if no storage can be obtained or if <tt>n &lt;= 0</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
<p>
I read this as prohibiting to return a buffer of which capacity is less than <tt>n</tt>, because 
such a buffer is not sufficient to store <tt>n</tt> objects.
<p/>
The corresponding description in <a href="http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/get_temporary_buffer.html">SGI STL</a> 
is clear on this point, but I think it is a bit too verbose:
</p>

<blockquote class="note"><p>
(for the return value, a pair <tt>P</tt>) [...] the buffer pointed to by <tt>P.first</tt> is large enough 
to hold <tt>P.second</tt> objects of type <tt>T</tt>. <tt>P.second</tt> is greater than or equal to 0, 
and less than or equal to <tt>len</tt>.
</p></blockquote>

<p>
There seems to be two different targets of the "up to n" modification:
The capacity of obtained buffer, and the actual number that the caller
will store into the buffer.
<p/>
First I read as the latter, and got surprised seeing that libstdc++
implementation can return a smaller buffer. I started searching about
<tt>get_temporary_buffer()</tt>. After reading a quote from TC++PL at
<a href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3264299/why-do-i-need-stdget-temporary-buffer">stackoverflow</a>, 
I realized that the former is intended.
<p/>
Such misinterpretation seems common:
</p>
<ul>
<li>The above question is likely started from same misinterpretation.</li>
<li><p>JIS standard (Japanese translation of ISO&#47;IEC standard) says nothing
    like "up to". I think the editor misinterpreted the original wording,
    and omitted words for "up to" as it is redundant. (If a buffer is
    sufficient to store <tt>n</tt> objects, it is also sufficient to store
    up to <tt>n</tt> objects.)</p></li>
<li><p>Rogue Wave implementation doesn't return smaller buffer, instead, it
    can return larger buffer on some circumstances. Apache 
	<a href="http://stdcxx.apache.org/">STDCXX</a> is a derived version of that
    implementation, and <a href="https://stdcxx.apache.org/doc/stdlibref/get-temporary-buffer.html">publicly accessible</a>:
</p>
<blockquote class="note"><p>
Specializations of the <tt>get_temporary_buffer()</tt> function template
attempt to allocate a region of storage sufficiently large to store at
least <tt>n</tt> adjacent objects of type <tt>T</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
I know one commercial compiler package based on Rogue Wave implementation, 
and its implementation is essentially same as the above.
</p>
</li>
</ul>


<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2073"></a>2073. Library exceptions that take string arguments</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 19.2 [std.exceptions], 19.5.6 [syserr.syserr], 27.5.3.1.1 [ios::failure] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Eelis van der Weegen <b>Opened:</b> 2011-08-16 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#std.exceptions">issues</a> in [std.exceptions].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
This is an extension issue for LWG to add constructor overloads that take a 
<tt>string</tt> by an rvalue reference in order to move the string into the 
exception.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2074"></a>2074. Off by one error in <tt>std::reverse_copy</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 25.3.10 [alg.reverse] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Peter Miller <b>Opened:</b> 2011-08-17 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#alg.reverse">issues</a> in [alg.reverse].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
The output of the program below should be:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
"three two one null \n"
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
But when <tt>std::reverse_copy</tt> is implemented as described in N3291 25.3.10 [alg.reverse] 
it's:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
"null three two one \n"
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
because there's an off by one error in 25.3.10 [alg.reverse]&#47;4; the definition should read:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
*(result + (last - first) <span style="color:#C80000;font-weight:bold">- 1</span> - i) = *(first + i)
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
Test program:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;algorithm&gt;
#include &lt;iostream&gt;

template &lt;typename BiIterator, typename OutIterator&gt;
auto
reverse_copy_as_described_in_N3291(
  BiIterator first, BiIterator last, OutIterator result )
-&gt; OutIterator
{
  // 25.3.10&#47;4 [alg.reverse]:
  // "...such that for any non-negative integer i &lt; (last - first)..."
  for ( unsigned i = 0; i &lt; ( last - first ); ++i )
    // "...the following assignment takes place:"
    *(result + (last - first) - i) = *(first + i);

  // 25.3.10&#47;6
  return result + (last - first);
}

int main()
{
  using std::begin;
  using std::end;
  using std::cout;

  static const char*const in[3]  { "one", "two", "three" };
  const char*             out[4] { "null", "null", "null", "null" };

  reverse_copy_as_described_in_N3291( begin( in ), end( in ), out );

  for ( auto s : out )
    cout &lt;&lt; s &lt;&lt; ' ';

  cout &lt; std::endl;

  return 0;
}
</pre></blockquote>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<p>
Change 25.3.10 [alg.reverse] p4 as follows:
</p> 
<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class BidirectionalIterator, class OutputIterator&gt;
  OutputIterator
    reverse_copy(BidirectionalIterator first,
                 BidirectionalIterator last, OutputIterator result);
</pre><blockquote><p>
-4- <i>Effects</i>: Copies the range [<tt>first,last</tt>) to the range [<tt>result,result+(last-first)</tt>) 
such that for any non-negative integer <tt>i &lt; (last - first)</tt> the following assignment takes place: 
<tt>*(result + (last - first) <ins>- 1</ins> - i) = *(first + i)</tt>.
<p/>
-5- <i>Requires</i>: The ranges [<tt>first,last</tt>) and [<tt>result,result+(last-first)</tt>) shall not overlap.
<p/>
-6- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>result + (last - first)</tt>.
<p/>
-7- <i>Complexity</i>: Exactly <tt>last - first</tt> assignments.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2075"></a>2075. Progress guarantees, lock-free property, and scheduling assumptions</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 1.10 [intro.multithread], 29.4 [atomics.lockfree], 29.6.5 [atomics.types.operations.req] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Torvald Riegel <b>Opened:</b> 2011-08-18 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
According to 1.10 [intro.multithread] p2: 
</p>
<blockquote><p>
"Implementations should ensure that all unblocked threads eventually make progress."
</p></blockquote>
<ul>
<li>If taken literally, this cannot be achieved with lock-free atomics in
 general because they only guarantee that some thread makes progress
 (i.e., minimal progress, whereas 1.10 [intro.multithread] p2 seems to 
 require maximal progress).
</li>
<li>What does it mean precisely to "make progress"? Does "unblocked
 threads" exclude live-locked threads (if so, lock-free atomics would
 be sufficient I suppose)?
</li>
<li><p>Which assumptions can an implementation make about the thread
 scheduling? This is relevant for how implementations implement
 compare-exchange with load-linked &#47; store conditional (LL-SC), and
 atomic read-modifiy-write operations with load...compare-exchange-weak
 loops.
</p>
<ul>
<li>Do threads run long enough without being descheduled (e.g.,
   OS timeslices are long enough, interrupt frequency is not too
   high, etc.)?
</li>
<li>Or is this implementation-defined, and the sentence is just about
   stating that the progress guarantees will not hold on, for example,
   systems with unfair scheduling or thread priorities?
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>

<p>
29.4 [atomics.lockfree] p2 declares the lock-free property for a
particular object. However, "lock-free" is never defined, and in discussions 
that I had with committee members it seemed as if the standard's lock-free would be
different from what lock-free means in other communities (eg, research,
text books on concurrent programming, etc.).
</p>
<ul>
<li>Originally, lock-freedom for an object requires minimal progress (ie,
 some thread makes progress, but other threads might never do) without
 any assumptions about the scheduling (threads could be stopped
 executing (so it is "nonblocking"), and threads are not guaranteed to
 execute in isolation, even for very small intervals of cycles).
</li>
<li>In contrast, obstruction-freedom, another nonblocking progress
 condition, guarantees progress for all threads that eventually get
 executed long enough in isolation (ie, without interference by other
 threads).
</li>
<li>Simple load...compare-exchange-weak loops (or LL-SC loops) to
 implement atomic read-modify-write operations can be just
 obstruction-free but not lock-free because they can livelock
 (depending on the hardware's LL-SC implementation, though). However,
 they effectively guarantee the same as lock-free iff threads will
 eventually run in isolation for long enough (that can be an assumption
 about the OS scheduler), or if the implementation adds this (e.g.,
 probabilistically by employing randomized exponential back-off when
 contention is detected, in all operations that can create contention).
</li>
<li>Does the particular object has to be lock-free, or is it only required
 that threads make progress irrespective on which object? Again
 considering compare-exchange-weak or LL-SC here, what happens if the
 compare-exchange object shares a cacheline with an integer counter
 object that is constantly updated by other threads? The
 compare-exchange-weak can always fail, so the object would not be
 lock-free. However, if we consider progress to be overall progress for
 threads, it would be lock-free because other threads succeed updating
 the integer counter. I would have assumed the lock-free property is
 strictly about the atomic object, but in discussions with committee
 members it seemed as if progress for any object could be the intended
 guarantee.
</li>
</ul>

<p>
Following 29.6.5 [atomics.types.operations.req] p7 <tt>is_lock_free()</tt> 
returns "true if the object is lock-free". What is returned if the object is only 
sometimes lock-free?
</p>

<p>
Basically, I would like to see clarifications for the progress
guarantees so that users know what they can expect from implementations
(and what they cannot expect!), and to give implementors a clearer
understanding of which user expectations they have to implement.
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Elaborate on the intentions of the progress guarantee in 
1.10 [intro.multithread] p2. As I don't know about your intentions, 
it's hard to suggest a resolution.
</p>
<ul>
<li>Is it for straightforward, non-synchronizing code only?</li>
<li>Is it for blocking code only? (Is "unblocked" more than blocked on
 external I/O or on deadlocks?)
</li>
<li>What does it mean to "make progress"?</li>
<li>Is this meant to only waive any progress guarantees if there are
 thread priorities?
</li>
<li>Can an implementation make any assumptions about thread scheduling?
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><p>Define the lock-free property. The definition should probably include
the following points:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Is it just nonblocking, or what is the distinction to just being nonblocking?</li>
<li>Does it make any assumptions about the scheduler?</li>
<li>What are the progress guarantees, minimal or maximal (some or all threads finish eventually).</li>
<li>Is progress guaranteed for all operations on the particular object, or
 do operations on other objects also count as "making progress"?
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Add a note explaining that compare-exchange-weak is not necessarily
lock-free (but is nonblocking)? Or is it indeed intended to be lock-free
(only allowed to fail spuriously but guaranteed to not fail eventually)?
Implementing the latter might be a challenge on LL-SC machines or lead
to space overheads I suppose, see the cacheline sharing example above.
</li>
</ol>

<p><i>[2011-12-01: Hans comments]</i></p>


<p>
1.10 [intro.multithread] p2 was an intentional compromise, and it was understood at the 
time that it was not a precise statement.  The wording was introduced by 
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3209.htm">N3209</a>, which 
discusses some of the issues. There were additional reflector discussions.
<p/>
This is somewhat separable from the question of what lock-free means, which is probably a more 
promising question to focus on.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2076"></a>2076. Bad <tt>CopyConstructible</tt> requirement in set constructors</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.4.6.2 [set.cons] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jens Maurer <b>Opened:</b> 2011-08-20 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
23.4.6.2 [set.cons] paragraph 4 says: 
</p>

<blockquote><p>
<i>Requires</i>: If the iterators dereference operator returns an lvalue or a non-const rvalue, 
then <tt>Key</tt> shall be <tt>CopyConstructible</tt>.
</p></blockquote>

<p>
I'm confused why a "non-const rvalue" for the return value of the iterator
would require <tt>CopyConstructible</tt>; isn't that exactly the situation 
when you'd want to apply the move constructor?
<p/>
The corresponding requirement for <tt>multimap</tt> seems better in that regard
([multimap.cons] paragraph 3):
</p>
<blockquote><p>
Requires: If the iterators dereference operator returns an lvalue or a const rvalue 
<tt>pair&lt;key_type, mapped_type&gt;</tt>, then both <tt>key_type</tt> and mapped_type 
shall be <tt>CopyConstructible</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
Obviously, if I have a const rvalue, I can't apply the move constructor (which will 
likely attempt modify its argument).
<p/>
Dave Abrahams:
<p/>
I think you are right.
Proposed resolution: drop "non-" from 23.4.6.2 [set.cons] paragraph 3.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<p>
Change 23.4.6.2 [set.cons] p3 as follows:
</p> 
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class InputIterator&gt;
  set(InputIterator first, InputIterator last,
    const Compare&amp; comp = Compare(), const Allocator&amp; = Allocator());
</pre><blockquote><p>
-3- Effects: Constructs an empty set using the specified comparison object and allocator, and inserts
elements from the range [<tt>first,last</tt>).
<p/>
-4- <i>Requires</i>: If the iterators dereference operator returns an lvalue or a <del>non-</del>const rvalue, 
then <tt>Key</tt> shall be <tt>CopyConstructible</tt>.
<p/>
-5- <i>Complexity</i>: Linear in <tt>N</tt> if the range [<tt>first,last</tt>) is already sorted using 
<tt>comp</tt> and otherwise <tt>N logN</tt>, where <tt>N</tt> is <tt>last - first</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2077"></a>2077. Further incomplete constraints for type traits</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.9.4.3 [meta.unary.prop] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-08-20 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#meta.unary.prop">active issues</a> in [meta.unary.prop].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#meta.unary.prop">issues</a> in [meta.unary.prop].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
The currently agreed on proposed wording for <a href="lwg-active.html#2015">2015</a> using 
<tt>remove_all_extents&lt;T&gt;::type</tt> instead of the "an array of 
unknown bound" terminology in the precondition should be extended to 
some further entries especially in Table 49, notably the 
<tt>is_*constructible</tt>, <tt>is_*assignable</tt>, and 
<tt>is_*destructible</tt> entries. To prevent ODR violations, incomplete
element types of arrays must be excluded for value-initialization and
destruction for example. Construction and assignment has to be honored, 
when we have array-to-pointer conversions or pointer conversions of
incomplete pointees in effect.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2078"></a>2078. Throw specification of <tt>async()</tt> incomplete</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.6.8 [futures.async] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Nicolai Josuttis <b>Opened:</b> 2011-08-29 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#futures.async">active issues</a> in [futures.async].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#futures.async">issues</a> in [futures.async].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
The current throw specification of <tt>async()</tt> does state:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
-6- <i>Throws</i>: <tt>system_error</tt> if policy is <tt>launch::async</tt> and 
the implementation is unable to start a new thread.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
First it seems not clear whether this only applies if policy equals 
<tt>launch::async</tt> of if the <tt>async</tt> launch mode flag is set 
(if <tt>policy|launch::async!=0</tt>)
<p/>
In the discussion Lawrence Crowl also wrote:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
    More generally, I think what we want to say is that if the
    implementation cannot successfully execute on one of the policies
    allowed, then it must choose another. The principle would apply
    to implementation-defined policies as well.
</p></blockquote>

<p>
Peter Sommerlad:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
Should not throw. That was the intent. "is async" meat exactly.
</p></blockquote>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2079"></a>2079. Required <tt>pow()</tt> overloads</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 26.8 [c.math] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Steve Clamage <b>Opened:</b> 2011-08-29 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#c.math">active issues</a> in [c.math].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#c.math">issues</a> in [c.math].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
LWG issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#550">550</a> removed the functions:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
float       pow(float, int);
double      pow(double, int);
long double pow(long double, int);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
from header <tt>&lt;cmath&gt;</tt>. This change does not seem to be mentioned in Annex C, C.2.14.
<p/>
Howard:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
N3290 26.8 [c.math]&#47;p11 says:
</p><blockquote>
<p>
Moreover, there shall be additional overloads sufficient to ensure:
</p>
<ol>
<li>If any argument corresponding to a <tt>double</tt> parameter has type <tt>long double</tt>, 
then all arguments corresponding to <tt>double</tt> parameters are effectively cast to 
<tt>long double</tt>.
</li>
<li>Otherwise, if any argument corresponding to a <tt>double</tt> parameter has type <tt>double</tt> 
or an integer type, then all arguments corresponding to <tt>double</tt> parameters are effectively 
cast to <tt>double</tt>.
</li>
<li>Otherwise, all arguments corresponding to <tt>double</tt> parameters are effectively cast to 
<tt>float</tt>.
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>
From C99 7.12.7.4 we have:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
double pow(double, double);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
26.8 [c.math]&#47;p11&#47;b2 says that if the client calls <tt>pow(2.0f, 2)</tt>, then the 
<tt>int</tt> for second argument causes the following effective call to be made:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
pow(static_cast&lt;double&gt;(2.0f), static_cast&lt;double&gt;(2)) -&gt; double
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
The first sentence of p11 implies that this is done by supplying the following additional overload:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
double pow(float, int);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
If the client calls <tt>pow(2.0, 2)</tt>, then the same reasoning (b2 again) implies the following 
additional overload:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
double pow(double, int);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
If the client calls <tt>pow(2.0l, 2)</tt>, then b1 implies the following additional overload:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
long double pow(long double, int);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
In all, p11 implies hundreds (perhaps thousands?) of extra overloads.  All but one of which is a superset 
of the overloads required by C++98&#47;03 (that one being <tt>pow(float, int)</tt> which had its return 
type changed from <tt>float</tt> to <tt>double</tt>).
<p/>
In practice, at least some vendors implement p11 by using templated overloads as opposed to ordinary overloads.
</p></blockquote>

<p>
Steve Clamage:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
Thanks. I didn't see that those extra overloads were actually implied by p11, despite the first sentence. 
Without examples, the point is a bit subtle (at least for me).
</p></blockquote>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2080"></a>2080. Specify when <tt>once_flag</tt> becomes invalid</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.4.4 [thread.once] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Nicolai Josuttis <b>Opened:</b> 2011-08-30 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
In function <tt>call_once</tt> 30.4.4.2 [thread.once.callonce]
paragraph 4 and 5 specify for <tt>call_once()</tt>:
</p>

<blockquote>
<p>
<i>Throws</i>: <tt>system_error</tt> when an exception is required (30.2.2 [thread.req.exception]), 
or any exception thrown by <tt>func</tt>.
<p/>
<i>Error conditions</i>:
</p>
<ul>
<li><tt>invalid_argument</tt> &mdash; if the <tt>once_flag</tt> object is no longer valid.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>

<p>
However, nowhere in 30.4.4 [thread.once] is specified, when a once-flag becomes invalid.
<p/>
As far as I know this happens if the flag is used for different functions. So we either have to have 
to insert a sentence&#47;paragraph in
</p>
<blockquote><p>
30.4.4.2 Function call_once [thread.once.callonce]
</p></blockquote>
<p>
or
</p>
<blockquote><p>
30.4.4 Call once [thread.once]
</p></blockquote>
<p>
explaining when a <tt>once_flag</tt> becomes invalidated or we should state as error condition something like:
</p>

<ul>
<li><tt>invalid_argument</tt> &mdash; if the <tt>func</tt> used in combination with the <tt>once_flag</tt> is different 
from a previously passed <tt>func</tt> for the same <tt>once_flag</tt>
</li>
</ul>

<p>
Anthony Williams:
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
A <tt>once_flag</tt> is invalidated if you destroy it (e.g. it is an automatic object, or heap 
allocated and deleted, etc.)
<p/>
If the library can detect that this is the case then it will throw this exception. If it cannot 
detect such a case then it will never be thrown.
</p>
</blockquote>

<p>
Jonathan Wakely:
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
I have also wondered how that error can happen in C++, where the type
system will reject a non-callable type being passed to <tt>call_once()</tt> and
should prevent a <tt>once_flag</tt> being used after its destructor runs.
<p/>
If a <tt>once_flag</tt> is used after its destructor runs then it is indeed
undefined behaviour, so implementations are already free to throw any
exception (or set fire to a printer) without the standard saying so.
<p/>
My assumption was that it's an artefact of basing the API on pthreads,
which says:
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
The <tt>pthread_once()</tt> function may fail if:
<p/>
<tt>[EINVAL]</tt>  If either <tt>once_control</tt> or <tt>init_routine</tt> is invalid.
</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>
Pete Becker:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
Yes, probably. We had to clean up several UNIXisms that were in the original design.
</p></blockquote>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2081"></a>2081. <tt>Allocator</tt> requirements should include <tt>CopyConstructible</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 17.6.3.5 [allocator.requirements] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2011-08-30 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#allocator.requirements">active issues</a> in [allocator.requirements].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#allocator.requirements">issues</a> in [allocator.requirements].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
As discussed in c++std-lib-31054 and c++std-lib-31059, the <tt>Allocator</tt>
requirements implicitly require <tt>CopyConstructible</tt> because
<tt>a.select_on_container_copy_construction()</tt> and
<tt>container.get_allocator()</tt> both return a copy by value, but the
requirement is not stated explicitly anywhere.
<p/>
In order to clarify that allocators cannot have 'explicit' copy
constructors, the requirements should include <tt>CopyConstructible</tt>.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change Table 28 &mdash; Allocator requirements in 17.6.3.5 [allocator.requirements]:</p>

<table border="1">
<caption>Table 28 &mdash; Allocator requirements</caption>
<tr>
<th>Expression</th>
<th>Return type</th>
<th>Assertion&#47;note pre-&#47;post-condition</th>
<th>Default</th>
</tr> 
<tr>
<td>
<tt>X a1(a);<br/>
<ins>X a1 = a;</ins></tt>
</td>
<td>
</td>
<td>
Shall not exit via an exception.<br/>
post: <tt>a1 == a</tt>
</td>
<td>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">
<tt>&hellip;</tt>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>X a1(move(a));<br/>
<ins>X a1 = move(a);</ins></tt>
</td>
<td>
</td>
<td>
Shall not exit via an exception.<br/>
post: <tt>a1</tt> equals the prior value<br/>
of <tt>a</tt>.
</td>
<td>
</td>
</tr>
</table>

</li>

<li><p>Change 17.6.3.5 [allocator.requirements] paragraph 4:</p>

<blockquote><p>
<ins>An allocator type <tt>X</tt> shall satisfy the requirements of <tt>CopyConstructible</tt> 
(17.6.3.1 [utility.arg.requirements]).</ins> The <tt>X::pointer</tt>, <tt>X::const_pointer</tt>, 
<tt>X::void_pointer</tt>, and <tt>X::const_void_pointer</tt> types shall satisfy the requirements of 
<tt>NullablePointer</tt> (17.6.3.3 [nullablepointer.requirements]). No constructor, comparison 
operator, copy operation, move operation, or swap operation on these types shall exit via an 
exception. <tt>X::pointer</tt> and <tt>X::const_pointer</tt> shall also satisfy the requirements 
for a random access iterator (24.2 [iterator.requirements]).
</p></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2082"></a>2082. Misleading complexity requirements in <tt>&lt;algorithm&gt;</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 25 [algorithms] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Nicolai Josuttis <b>Opened:</b> 2011-09-02 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#algorithms">issues</a> in [algorithms].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
The <tt>partition_point()</tt> algorithm is specified with:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Complexity</i>: <i>O(log(last - first))</i> applications of <tt>pred</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
While this is correct, it gives the impression that this is a logarithmic algorithm.
But unless random access iterators are used it is not logarithmic because for advancing 
the iterator we have last-first steps, which means that the complexity becomes linear here.
<p/>
Shouldn't we clarify the complexity here to something like:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Complexity</i>: logarithmic for random-access iterators and linear otherwise
            (in any case <i>O(log(last - first)</i>) applications of <tt>pred</tt>).
</p></blockquote>
<p>
Or should we even require <i>O(log(last - first)</i> for random-access iterators only because 
for other iterators just iterating over all elements, while calling <tt>pred</tt> for each element, 
might often be faster.
</p>

<p>
Daniel Kr&uuml;gler:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
I agree that especially this description is a bit misleading. I'm not
convinced that this is a real defect, because the whole bunch of
templates within <tt>&lt;algorithm&gt;</tt> document the complexity solely of
<em>applications*</em> of predicates, assignment, or swaps, but never the
complexity of traversal operations (e.g. increment or iterator
equality tests). This means, the standard is consistent for this
function template, even though it could say a bit more.
<p/>
I would like to see a wording improvement, but I would rather think that
the complexity of the predicate should be mentioned first (as in other
algorithms) and that a non-normative note could be added for
specifically this algorithm to point out that this does not imply
a logarithmic traversal complexity. The note could give more details,
by explicity pointing out the linear traversal complexity for
non-random-Access iterators.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
Howard Hinnant:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
If we are going to make such improvements, they should be made across the 
board in <tt>&lt;algorithm&gt;</tt>, not to just <tt>partition_point</tt>.  
For example all 4 algorithms in 25.4.3 [alg.binary.search] have the 
same issue, and have since C++98.
<p/>
<tt>stable_partition</tt> and <tt>inplace_merge</tt> should be inspected as well.
<p/>
Perhaps a new paragraph in 25.1 [algorithms.general], similar to 
p12 would be a better place to address this issue.
</p></blockquote>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2083"></a>2083. const-qualification on <tt>weak_ptr::owner_before</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.7.2.3 [util.smartptr.weak], 20.7.2.3.5 [util.smartptr.weak.obs] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Ai Azuma <b>Opened:</b> 2011-09-06 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#util.smartptr.weak">issues</a> in [util.smartptr.weak].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Is there any reason why <tt>weak_ptr::owner_before</tt> member function templates are not const-qualified?
</p>

<p>
Daniel Kr&uuml;gler:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
I don't think so. To the contrary, without these to be const member function templates, the
semantics of the specializations <tt>owner_less&lt;weak_ptr&lt;T&gt;&gt;</tt>  and
<tt>owner_less&lt;shared_ptr&lt;T&gt;&gt;</tt> described in 20.7.2.3.7 [util.smartptr.ownerless] 
is unclear.
<p/>
It is amusing to note that this miss has remain undetected from the accepted paper
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2637.pdf">n2637</a> 
on. For the suggested wording changes see below. 
</p></blockquote>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change the class template <tt>weak_ptr</tt> synopsis in 20.7.2.3 [util.smartptr.weak]
as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template&lt;class T&gt; class weak_ptr {
  public:
    typedef T element_type;
    [&hellip;]
    template&lt;class U&gt; bool owner_before(shared_ptr&lt;U&gt; const&amp; b) <ins>const</ins>;
    template&lt;class U&gt; bool owner_before(weak_ptr&lt;U&gt; const&amp; b) <ins>const</ins>;
  };
  [&hellip;]
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>
<li><p>Change the prototypes in 20.7.2.3.5 [util.smartptr.weak.obs] before p6 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class U&gt; bool owner_before(shared_ptr&lt;U&gt; const&amp; b) <ins>const</ins>;
template&lt;class U&gt; bool owner_before(weak_ptr&lt;U&gt; const&amp; b) <ins>const</ins>;
</pre></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2085"></a>2085. Wrong description of effect 1 of <tt>basic_istream::ignore</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 27.7.2.3 [istream.unformatted] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Krzysztof Zelechowski <b>Opened:</b> 2011-09-11 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#istream.unformatted">issues</a> in [istream.unformatted].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
27.7.2.3 [istream.unformatted] in N3242 currently has the following to say about the
semantics of <tt>basic_istream::ignore</tt>:
</p>

<blockquote><p>
[..]. Characters are extracted until any of the following occurs:
</p>
<ul>
<li>if <tt>n != numeric_limits&lt;streamsize&gt;::max()</tt> (18.3.2), <tt>n</tt> characters are extracted
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>

<p>
This statement, apart from being slightly ungrammatical, indicates that if
(<tt>n == numeric_limits&lt;streamsize&gt;::max()</tt>), the method returns without
extracting any characters.
<p/>
The description intends to describe the observable behaviour of an
implementation in terms of logical assertions.  Logical assertions are not
"bullets" that can be "entered" but need not; they are predicates that can
evaluate to true or false.
<p/>
The description contains two predicates, either of them causes extraction to
terminate.  In the incriminated case, the first predicate is evaluates to
true because its premise is false, therefore no characters will be
extracted.
<p/>
The intended semantics would be described by the following statement:
</p>

<blockquote><p>
[..]. Characters are extracted until any of the following occurs:
</p>
<ul>
<li><tt>(n != numeric_limits&lt;streamsize&gt;::max())</tt> (18.3.2) and (<tt>n</tt>) characters
have been extracted so far.
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<p>Change 27.7.2.3 [istream.unformatted] p25 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
basic_istream&lt;charT,traits&gt;&amp;
  ignore(streamsize n = 1, int_type delim = traits::eof());
</pre><blockquote><p>
-25- <i>Effects</i>: Behaves as an unformatted input function (as described in 27.7.2.3 [istream.unformatted], paragraph 1). After
constructing a <tt>sentry</tt> object, extracts characters and discards them. Characters are extracted until
any of the following occurs:
</p>
<ul>
<li><del>if</del> <tt>n != numeric_limits&lt;streamsize&gt;::max()</tt> (18.3.2.1 [limits.numeric])<del>,</del><ins>and</ins> 
<tt>n</tt> characters <del>are</del><ins>have been</ins> extracted <ins>so far</ins>
</li>
<li>end-of-file occurs on the input sequence (in which case the function calls <tt>setstate(eofbit)</tt>,
which may throw <tt>ios_base::failure</tt> (27.5.5.4 [iostate.flags]));
</li>
<li><tt>traits::eq_int_type(traits::to_int_type(c), delim)</tt> for the next available input character <tt>c</tt> 
(in which case <tt>c</tt> is extracted).
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote></blockquote>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2086"></a>2086. Overly generic type support for math functions</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 26.8 [c.math] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-09-22 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#c.math">active issues</a> in [c.math].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#c.math">issues</a> in [c.math].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
26.8 [c.math] ends with a description of a rule set for "sufficient overloads"
in p11:
</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Moreover, there shall be additional overloads sufficient to ensure:</p>
<ol>
<li>
If any argument corresponding to a <tt>double</tt> parameter has type <tt>long double</tt>, then all arguments
corresponding to <tt>double</tt> parameters are effectively cast to <tt>long double</tt>.
</li>
<li>
Otherwise, if any argument corresponding to a <tt>double</tt> parameter has type <tt>double</tt> or an integer type,
then all arguments corresponding to <tt>double</tt> parameters are effectively cast to <tt>double</tt>.
</li>
<li>
Otherwise, all arguments corresponding to <tt>double</tt> parameters are effectively cast to <tt>float</tt>.
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>

<p>
My impression is that this rule set is probably more generic as intended, my assumption is that it is written 
to mimic the C99&#47;C1x rule set in 7.25 p2+3 in the "C++" way:
</p>

<blockquote>
<p>
-2- Of the <tt>&lt;math.h&gt;</tt> and <tt>&lt;complex.h&gt;</tt> functions without an 
<tt>f</tt> (<tt>float</tt>) or <tt>l</tt> (<tt>long double</tt>) suffix, several have 
one or more parameters whose corresponding real type is <tt>double</tt>. For each such 
function, except <tt>modf</tt>, there is a corresponding type-generic macro. (footnote 313) 
The parameters whose corresponding real type is <tt>double</tt> in the function
synopsis are generic parameters. Use of the macro invokes a function whose
corresponding real type and type domain are determined by the arguments for the generic
parameters. (footnote 314)
<p/>
-3- Use of the macro invokes a function whose generic parameters have the corresponding 
real type determined as follows:
</p>
<ul>
<li>
First, if any argument for generic parameters has type <tt>long double</tt>, the type
determined is <tt>long double</tt>.
</li>
<li>
Otherwise, if any argument for generic parameters has type <tt>double</tt> or is of integer
type, the type determined is <tt>double</tt>.
</li>
<li>
Otherwise, the type determined is <tt>float</tt>.
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>

<p>
where footnote 314 clarifies the intent:
</p>

<blockquote>
<p>
If the type of the argument is not compatible with the type of the parameter for the selected function,
the behavior is undefined.
</p>
</blockquote>

<p>
The combination of the usage of the unspecific term "cast" with otherwise no further constraints 
(note that C constraints the valid set to types that C++ describes as arithmetic types, but see below 
for one important difference) has the effect that it requires the following examples to be well-formed 
and well-defined:
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;cmath&gt;

enum class Ec { };

struct S { explicit operator long double(); };

void test(Ec e, S s) {
 std::sqrt(e); // OK, behaves like std::sqrt((float) e);
 std::sqrt(s); // OK, behaves like std::sqrt((float) s);
}
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
GCC 4.7 does not accept any of these examples.
<p/>
I found another example where the C++ rule differs from the C set, 
but in this case I'm not so sure, which direction C++ should follow. 
The difference is located in the fact, that in C enumerated types are 
<em>integer types</em> as described in 6.2.5 p17 (see e.g. n1569 or n1256):
<p/>
"The type char, the signed and unsigned integer types, and
the enumerated types are collectively called integer types. The
integer and real floating types are collectively called real types."
<p/>
This indicates that in C the following code
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;math.h&gt;

enum E { e };

void test(void) {
  sqrt(e); // OK, behaves like sqrt((double) e);
}
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
seems to be well-defined and <tt>e</tt> is cast to <tt>double</tt>, but in C++
referring to
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;cmath&gt;

enum E { e };

void test() {
  std::sqrt(e); // OK, behaves like sqrt((float) e);
}
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
is also well-defined (because of our lack of constraints) but we
must skip bullet 2 (because E is not an integer type) and effectively
cast <tt>e</tt> to <tt>float</tt>. Accepting this, we would introduce 
a silent, but observable runtime difference for C and C++.
<p/>
GCC 4.7 does not accept this example, but causes an ambiguity
error among the three floating point overloads of sqrt.
<p/>
My current suggestion to fix these problems would be to constrain the 
valid argument types of these functions to arithmetic types.
</p>

<blockquote><p>
Howard provided wording to solve the issue.
</p></blockquote>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<p>Change 26.8 [c.math] p11 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Moreover, there shall be additional overloads sufficient to ensure:</p>
<ol>
<li>
If any <ins>arithmetic</ins> argument corresponding to a <tt>double</tt> parameter has 
type <tt>long double</tt>, then all <ins>arithmetic</ins> arguments corresponding to 
<tt>double</tt> parameters are effectively cast to <tt>long double</tt>.
</li>
<li>
Otherwise, if any <ins>arithmetic</ins> argument corresponding to a <tt>double</tt> 
parameter has type <tt>double</tt> or an integer type, then all <ins>arithmetic</ins> 
arguments corresponding to <tt>double</tt> parameters are effectively cast to <tt>double</tt>.
</li>
<li>
Otherwise, all <ins>arithmetic</ins> arguments corresponding to <tt>double</tt> parameters 
<del>are effectively cast to</del><ins>have type</ins> <tt>float</tt>.
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2087"></a>2087. <tt>iostream_category()</tt> and <tt>noexcept</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 27.5 [iostreams.base] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Nicolai Josuttis <b>Opened:</b> 2011-09-22 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#iostreams.base">issues</a> in [iostreams.base].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
In <tt>&lt;system_error&gt;</tt> we have:
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
const error_category&amp; generic_category() noexcept;
const error_category&amp; system_category() noexcept;
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
In <tt>&lt;future&gt;</tt> we have:
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
const error_category&amp; future_category() noexcept;
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
But in <tt>&lt;ios&gt;</tt> we have:
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
const error_category&amp; iostream_category();
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
Is there any reason that <tt>iostream_category()</tt> is not declared with 
<tt>noexcept</tt> or is this an oversight?
</p>

<p>
Daniel:
<p/>
This looks like an oversight to me. We made the above
mentioned changes as part of noexcept-ifying the thread
library but <tt>iostream_category()</tt> was skipped, so it seems
to be forgotten. There should be no reason, why it cannot
be <tt>noexcept</tt>. When doing so, we should also make these functions
<tt>noexcept</tt> (similar to corresponding overloads):
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
error_code make_error_code(io_errc e);
error_condition make_error_condition(io_errc e);
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
Suggested wording provided by Daniel.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ol><li>
<p>Change 27.5.1 [iostreams.base.overview], header <tt>&lt;ios&gt;</tt> synopsis 
as indicated:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;iosfwd&gt;
namespace std {
  [&hellip;]
  error_code make_error_code(io_errc e) <ins>noexcept</ins>;
  error_condition make_error_condition(io_errc e) <ins>noexcept</ins>;
  const error_category&amp; iostream_category() <ins>noexcept</ins>;
}
</pre></blockquote>

</li>
<li>
<p>Change the prototype declarations in 27.5.6.5 [error.reporting] as indicated:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
error_code make_error_code(io_errc e) <ins>noexcept</ins>;
</pre></blockquote><blockquote>
<p>
-1- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>error_code(static_cast&lt;int&gt;(e), iostream_category())</tt>.
</p>
</blockquote><blockquote><pre>
error_condition make_error_condition(io_errc e) <ins>noexcept</ins>;
</pre></blockquote><blockquote>
<p>
-2- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>error_condition(static_cast&lt;int&gt;(e), iostream_category())</tt>.
</p>
</blockquote><blockquote><pre>
const error_category&amp; iostream_category() <ins>noexcept</ins>;
</pre></blockquote><blockquote>
<p>
-3- <i>Returns</i>: A reference to an object of a type derived from class <tt>error_category</tt>.
<p/>
-4- The objects <tt>default_error_condition</tt> and <tt>equivalent</tt> virtual functions shall behave as specified
for the class <tt>error_category</tt>. The objects <tt>name</tt> virtual function shall return a pointer to the string
<tt>"iostream"</tt>.
</p>
</blockquote>
</li>
</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2088"></a>2088. <tt>std::terminate</tt> problem</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 18.8.3 [exception.terminate] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-09-25 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Andrzej Krzemienski reported the following on comp.std.c++:
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
In N3290, which is to become the official standard, in 18.8.3.4 [terminate],
paragraph 1 reads
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Remarks</i>: Called by the implementation when exception handling must
be abandoned for any of several reasons (15.5.1), in effect immediately after 
evaluating the <em>throw-expression</em> (18.8.3.1). May also be called directly by the 
program.
</p></blockquote>
<p>It is not clear what is "in effect". It was clear in previous drafts where paragraphs 
1 and 2 read:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
Called by the implementation when exception handling must be
abandoned for any of several reasons (15.5.1). May also be called directly
by the program.
<p/>
<i>Effects</i>: Calls the <tt>terminate_handler</tt> function in effect
immediately after evaluating the <em>throw-expression</em> (18.8.3.1), if called by the
implementation, or calls the current <tt>terminate_handler</tt> function,
if called by the program.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
It was changed by N3189. The same applies to function unexpected (D. 11.4, paragraph 1).
<p/>
Assuming the previous wording is still intended, the wording can be read
"unless <tt>std::terminate</tt> is called by the program, we will use the handler
that was in effect immediately after evaluating the throw-expression".
<p/>
  This assumes that there is some throw-expression connected to every
  situation that triggers the call to <tt>std::terminate</tt>. But this is not
  the case:
</p>
<ul>
<li>
  In case <tt>std::thread</tt> is assigned to or destroyed while being joinable
  there is no throw-expression involved.
</li>
<li>
  In case <tt>std::unexpected</tt> is called by the program, <tt>std::terminate</tt> is
  triggered by the implementation - no throw-expression involved.
</li>
<li>
  In case a destructor throws during stack unwinding we have two throw-expressions 
  involved.
 </li>
 </ul>
<p>
Which one is referred to?
<p/>
In case <tt>std::nested_exception::rethrow_nested</tt> is called for an object that has 
captured no exception, there is no throw-expression involved directly (and may no throw 
be involved even indirectly).
<p/>
Next, 18.8.3.1 [terminate.handler], paragraph 2 says 
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Required behavior</i>: A <tt>terminate_handler</tt> shall terminate execution
of the program without returning to the caller.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
This seems to allow that the function may exit by throwing an
exception (because word "return" implies a normal return).
<p/>
One could argue that words "terminate execution of the program" are sufficient,
but then why "without returning to the caller" would be mentioned. In
case such handler throws, noexcept specification in function <tt>std::terminate</tt> 
is violated, and <tt>std::terminate</tt> would be called recursively - should 
<tt>std::abort</tt> not be called in case of recursive <tt>std::terminate</tt> 
call? On the other hand some controlled recursion could be useful, like in the 
<a href="http://cplusplus.co.il/2010/03/21/catching-uncaught-exceptions-within-terminate/">following technique</a>.
</p>
</blockquote>

<p>
The here mentioned wording changes by N3189 in regard to 18.8.3.4 [terminate] p1 
were done for a better separation of effects (Effects element) and additional normative 
wording explanations (Remarks element), there was no meaning change intended. Further,
there was already a defect existing in the previous wording, which was not updated when 
further situations where defined, when <tt>std::terminate</tt> where supposed to be 
called by the implementation. 
<p/>
The part
<p/>
"in effect immediately after evaluating the throw-expression"
<p/>
should be removed and the quoted reference to 18.8.3.1 [terminate.handler] 
need to be part of the effects element where it refers to the current <tt>terminate_handler</tt> 
function, so should be moved just after
<p/>
"Effects: Calls the current <tt>terminate_handler</tt> function."
<p/>
It seems ok to allow a termination handler to exit via an exception, but the 
suggested idiom should better be replaced by a more simpler one based on
evaluating the current exception pointer in the terminate handler, e.g.
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
void our_terminate (void) {
  std::exception_ptr p = std::current_exception();
  if (p) {
    ... // OK to rethrow and to determine it's nature
  } else {
    ... // Do something else
  }
}
</pre></blockquote>

<p><i>[2011-12-09: Daniel comments]</i></p>


<p>
A related issue is <a href="lwg-active.html#2111">2111</a>.
</p>




<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2089"></a>2089. <tt>std::allocator::construct</tt> should use uniform initialization</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.6.9.1 [allocator.members] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> David Krauss <b>Opened:</b> 2011-10-07 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#allocator.members">issues</a> in [allocator.members].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
When the <tt>EmplaceConstructible</tt> (23.2.1 [container.requirements.general]&#47;13) requirement is used 
to initialize an object, direct-initialization occurs. Initializing an aggregate or using a <tt>std::initializer_list</tt> 
constructor with emplace requires naming the initialized type and moving a temporary. This is a result of 
<tt>std::allocator::construct</tt> using direct-initialization, not list-initialization (sometimes called "uniform 
initialization") syntax.
<p/>
Altering <tt>std::allocator&lt;T&gt;::construct</tt> to use list-initialization would, among other things, give 
preference to <tt>std::initializer_list</tt> constructor overloads, breaking valid code in an unintuitive and 
unfixable way &mdash; there would be no way for <tt>emplace_back</tt> to access a constructor preempted by 
<tt>std::initializer_list</tt> without essentially reimplementing <tt>push_back</tt>.
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
std::vector&lt;std::vector&lt;int&gt;&gt; v;
v.emplace_back(3, 4); // v[0] == {4, 4, 4}, not {3, 4} as in list-initialization
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
The proposed compromise is to use SFINAE with <tt>std::is_constructible</tt>, which tests whether direct-initialization 
is well formed. If <tt>is_constructible</tt> is false, then an alternative <tt>std::allocator::construct</tt> overload 
is chosen which uses list-initialization. Since list-initialization always falls back on direct-initialization, the 
user will see diagnostic messages as if list-initialization (uniform-initialization) were always being used, because 
the direct-initialization overload cannot fail.
<p/>
I can see two corner cases that expose gaps in this scheme. One occurs when arguments intended for 
<tt>std::initializer_list</tt> satisfy a constructor, such as trying to emplace-insert a value of <tt>{3, 4}</tt> in 
the above example. The workaround is to explicitly specify the <tt>std::initializer_list</tt> type, as in 
<tt>v.emplace_back(std::initializer_list&lt;int&gt;(3, 4))</tt>. Since this matches the semantics as if 
<tt>std::initializer_list</tt> were deduced, there seems to be no real problem here.
<p/>
The other case is when arguments intended for aggregate initialization satisfy a constructor. Since aggregates cannot 
have user-defined constructors, this requires that the first nonstatic data member of the aggregate be implicitly 
convertible from the aggregate type, and that the initializer list have one element. The workaround is to supply an 
initializer for the second member. It remains impossible to in-place construct an aggregate with only one nonstatic 
data member by conversion from a type convertible to the aggregate's own type. This seems like an acceptably small 
hole.
<p/>
The change is quite small because <tt>EmplaceConstructible</tt> is defined in terms of whatever allocator is specified, 
and there is no need to explicitly mention SFINAE in the normative text.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<p>Change 20.6.9.1 [allocator.members] p12 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class U, class... Args&gt;
  void construct(U* p, Args&amp;&amp;... args);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
12 <i>Effects</i>: <tt>::new((void *)p) U(std::forward&lt;Args&gt;(args)...)</tt> <ins>if <tt>is_constructible&lt;U, Args...&gt;::value</tt> 
is <tt>true</tt>, else <tt>::new((void *)p) U{std::forward&lt;Args&gt;(args)...}</tt></ins>
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2090"></a>2090. Minor Overconstraint in Mutex Types</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.4.1.2 [thread.mutex.requirements.mutex] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Pete Becker <b>Opened:</b> 2011-10-17 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
30.4.1.2 [thread.mutex.requirements.mutex]&#47;6, fourth bullet requires the 
return type of <tt>m.lock()</tt> to be <tt>void</tt>. 
<p/>
This is over-constrained. The true requirement is that the standard library 
ignores any value that the function returns. Yes, allowing non-void return 
types means that users can't store a pointer to this member function. No, 
that's not the least bit important.
<p/>
[See also the discussion following c++std-lib-31318]
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2091"></a>2091. Misplaced effect in <tt>m.try_lock_for()</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.4.1.3 [thread.timedmutex.requirements] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Pete Becker <b>Opened:</b> 2011-10-18 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
30.4.1.3 [thread.timedmutex.requirements]&#47;4 says, in part, 
</p><blockquote><p>
"<i>Requires</i>: If the tick period of [the argument] is not exactly 
convertible &hellip; [it] shall be rounded up &hellip;"
</p></blockquote>
<p>
This doesn't belong in the requires clause. It's an effect. It belongs in paragraph 5. 
Nitpickingly, this would be a technical change: as written it imposes an obligation on 
the caller, while moving it imposes an obligation on the callee. Although that's certainly 
not what was intended.
<p/>
Peter Dimov comments:
<p/>
Not to mention that it should round down, not up. :-)
<p/>
Incidentally, I see that the wrong <tt>try_lock</tt> requirement that the caller shall not own 
the mutex has entered the standard, after all. Oh well. Let's hope that the real world 
continues to ignore it.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2092"></a>2092. Vague Wording for <tt>condition_variable_any</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.5.2 [thread.condition.condvarany] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Pete Becker <b>Opened:</b> 2011-10-20 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#thread.condition.condvarany">issues</a> in [thread.condition.condvarany].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
30.5.2 [thread.condition.condvarany]&#47;4 says, in part, that 
<tt>condition_variable_any()</tt> throws an exception 
"if any native handle type manipulated is not available". 
<p/>
I don't know what that means. Is this intended to say something different 
from the analogous words for <tt>condition_variable()</tt> [30.5.1 [thread.condition.condvar]&#47;4], 
"if some non-memory resource limitation prevents initialization"? If not, 
it should be worded the same way.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2093"></a>2093. Throws clause of <tt>condition_variable::wait</tt> with predicate</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.5.1 [thread.condition.condvar] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Alberto Ganesh Barbati <b>Opened:</b> 2011-10-27 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#thread.condition.condvar">issues</a> in [thread.condition.condvar].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
the Throws: clause of <tt>condition_variable::wait&#47;wait_xxx</tt> functions that 
take a predicate argument is:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Throws</i>: <tt>system_error</tt> when an exception is required (30.2.2 [thread.req.exception]).
</p></blockquote>
<p>
If executing the predicate throws an exception, I would expect such exception to propagate unchanged 
to the caller, but the throws clause seems to indicate that it gets mutated into a system_error. T
hat's because of 17.5.1.4 [structure.specifications]&#47;4:
<p/>
"If Fs semantics contains a Throws:, Postconditions:, or Complexity: element, then that supersedes 
any occurrences of that element in the code sequence."
<p/>
Is my interpretation correct? Does it match the intent?
<p/>
Daniel comments:
<p/>
I don't think that this interpretation is entirely correct, the wording does not say that 
<tt>std::system_error</tt> or a derived class must be thrown, it simply is underspecified 
in this regard (The extreme interpretation is that the behaviour would be undefined, but 
that would be too far reaching I think). We have better wording for this in 
30.4.4.2 [thread.once.callonce] p4, where it says:
<p/>
"<i>Throws</i>: <tt>system_error</tt> when an exception is required (30.2.2 [thread.req.exception]), 
or any exception thrown by <tt>func</tt>."
<p/>
or in 30.3.2 [thread.thread.this] p6&#47;p9:
<p/>
"<i>Throws</i>: Nothing if <tt>Clock</tt> satisfies the <tt>TrivialClock</tt> requirements 
(20.11.3 [time.clock.req]) and operations of <tt>Duration</tt> do not throw exceptions. 
[ <i>Note</i>: instantiations of time point types and clocks supplied by the implementation 
as specified in 20.11.7 [time.clock] do not throw exceptions. &mdash; <i>end note</i> ]"
<p/>
So, the here discussed Throws elements should add lines along the lines of
<p/>
"Any exception thrown by operations of <tt>pred</tt>."
<p/>
and similar wording for time-related operations:
<p/>
"Any exception thrown by operations of <tt>Duration</tt>",
<p/>
"Any exception thrown by operations of <tt>chrono::duration&lt;Rep, Period&gt;</tt>"
</p>

<p><i>[2011-11-28: Ganesh comments and suggests wording]</i></p>


<p>
As for the discussion about the exception thrown by the manipulation of time-related objects, 
I believe the argument applies to all functions declared in 30 [thread]. Therefore, 
instead of adding wording to each member, I would simply move those requirements from 
30.3.2 [thread.thread.this] p6&#47;p9 to a new paragraph in 30.2.4 [thread.req.timing]. 
<p/>
As for 30.5.2 [thread.condition.condvarany], the member functions <tt>wait()</tt> and 
<tt>wait_until()</tt> are described only in terms of the Effects: clause (so strictly speaking, 
they need no changes), however, <tt>wait_for()</tt> is described with a full set of clauses 
including Throws: and Error conditions:. Either we should add those clauses to <tt>wait&#47;wait_until</tt> 
with changes similar to the one above, or remove paragraphs 29 to 34 entirely. By the way, 
even paragraph 26 could be removed IMHO.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Add a new paragraph at the end of 30.2.4 [thread.req.timing]:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-6- The resolution of timing provided by an implementation depends on both operating system and hardware.
The finest resolution provided by an implementation is called the native resolution.
<p/>
-7- Implementation-provided clocks that are used for these functions shall meet the <tt>TrivialClock</tt> 
requirements (20.11.3 [time.clock.req]).
<p/>
<ins>-?- For all functions that specify a timeout, operations on clocks, time points and time duration 
types may throw exceptions. [ <i>Note</i>: instantiations of clock, time point and duration types supplied 
by the implementation as specified in 20.11.7 [time.clock] do not throw exceptions. &mdash; 
<i>end note</i>]</ins>
</p>
</blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 30.3.2 [thread.thread.this] as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class Clock, class Duration&gt;
  void sleep_until(const chrono::time_point&lt;Clock, Duration&gt;&amp; abs_time);;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-4- <i>Effects</i>: Blocks the calling thread for the absolute timeout (30.2.4 [thread.req.timing]) specified by <tt>abs_time</tt>.
<p/>
-5- <i>Synchronization</i>: None.
<p/>
-6- <i>Throws</i>: <ins>timeout-related exceptions (30.2.4 [thread.req.timing]).</ins><del>Nothing if 
<tt>Clock</tt> satisfies the <tt>TrivialClock</tt> requirements (20.11.3 [time.clock.req]) and 
operations of <tt>Duration</tt> do not throw exceptions. [ <i>Note</i>: instantiations of time point types 
and clocks supplied by the implementation as specified in 20.11.7 [time.clock] do not throw 
exceptions. &mdash; <i>end note</i>]</del>
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class Rep, class Period&gt;
  void sleep_for(const chrono::duration&lt;Rep, Period&gt;&amp; rel_time);;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-7- <i>Effects</i>: Blocks the calling thread for the relative timeout (30.2.4 [thread.req.timing]) specified by <tt>rel_time</tt>.
<p/>
-8- <i>Synchronization</i>: None.
<p/>
-9- <i>Throws</i>: <ins>timeout-related exceptions (30.2.4 [thread.req.timing]).</ins><del>Nothing 
if operations of <tt>chrono::duration&lt;Rep, Period&gt;</tt> do not throw exceptions. 
[ <i>Note</i>: instantiations of time point types and clocks supplied by the implementation
as specified in 20.11.7 [time.clock] do not throw exceptions. &mdash; <i>end note</i>]</del>
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Change 30.4.1.3 [thread.timedmutex.requirements] as indicated:</p>

<p>
-3- The expression <tt>m.try_lock_for(rel_time)</tt> shall be well-formed and have the following semantics:
<p/>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-5- <i>Effects</i>: The function attempts to obtain ownership of the mutex within the relative timeout (30.2.4 [thread.req.timing])
specified by <tt>rel_time</tt>. If the time specified by <tt>rel_time</tt> is less than or equal to <tt>rel_time.zero()</tt>, the
function attempts to obtain ownership without blocking (as if by calling <tt>try_lock()</tt>). The function
shall return within the timeout specified by <tt>rel_time</tt> only if it has obtained ownership of the mutex
object. [<i>Note</i>: As with <tt>try_lock()</tt>, there is no guarantee that ownership will be obtained if the lock
is available, but implementations are expected to make a strong effort to do so. &mdash; <i>end note</i>]
<p/>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-8- <i>Synchronization</i>: If <tt>try_lock_for()</tt> returns <tt>true</tt>, prior <tt>unlock()</tt> operations on the same object
<i>synchronize with</i> (1.10 [intro.multithread]) this operation.
<p/>
-9- <i>Throws</i>: <ins>timeout-related exceptions (30.2.4 [thread.req.timing]).</ins><del>Nothing</del>.
<p/>
-10- The expression <tt>m.try_lock_until(abs_time)</tt> shall be well-formed and have the following semantics:
<p/>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-12- <i>Effects</i>: The function attempts to obtain ownership of the mutex. If <tt>abs_time</tt> has already passed, the
function attempts to obtain ownership without blocking (as if by calling <tt>try_lock()</tt>). The function
shall return before the absolute timeout (30.2.4 [thread.req.timing]) specified by <tt>abs_time</tt> only 
if it has obtained ownership of the mutex object. [<i>Note</i>: As with <tt>try_lock()</tt>, there is no guarantee 
that ownership will be obtained if the lock is available, but implementations are expected to make a strong effort 
to do so. &mdash; <i>end note</i>]
<p/>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-15- <i>Synchronization</i>: If <tt>try_lock_until()</tt> returns true, prior <tt>unlock()</tt> operations on the same object
<i>synchronize with</i> (1.10 [intro.multithread]) this operation.
<p/>
-16- <i>Throws</i>: <ins>timeout-related exceptions (30.2.4 [thread.req.timing]).</ins><del>Nothing</del>.
</p>
</li>

<li><p>Change 30.5.1 [thread.condition.condvar] as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class Predicate&gt;
  void wait(unique_lock&lt;mutex&gt;&amp; lock, Predicate pred);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-15- <i>Effects</i>: <ins>Equivalent to:</ins>
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
while (!pred())
  wait(lock);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-17- <i>Throws</i>: <tt>std::system_error</tt> when an exception is required (30.2.2 [thread.req.exception])<ins>, 
timeout-related exceptions (30.2.4 [thread.req.timing]), or any exception thrown by <tt>pred</tt></ins>.
<p/>
[&hellip;]
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class Clock, class Duration&gt;
  cv_status wait_until(unique_lock&lt;mutex&gt;&amp; lock,
                       const chrono::time_point&lt;Clock, Duration&gt;&amp; abs_time);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-23- <i>Throws</i>: <tt>std::system_error</tt> when an exception is required (30.2.2 [thread.req.exception])
<ins>or timeout-related exceptions (30.2.4 [thread.req.timing])</ins>.
<p/>
[&hellip;]
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class Rep, class Period&gt;
  cv_status wait_for(unique_lock&lt;mutex&gt;&amp; lock,
                     const chrono::duration&lt;Rep, Period&gt;&amp; rel_time);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-26- <i>Effects</i>: <del>as if</del><ins>Equivalent to:</ins>
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
return wait_until(lock, chrono::steady_clock::now() + rel_time);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-29- <i>Throws</i>: <tt>std::system_error</tt> when an exception is required (30.2.2 [thread.req.exception])
<ins>or timeout-related exceptions (30.2.4 [thread.req.timing])</ins>.
<p/>
[&hellip;]
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class Clock, class Duration, class Predicate&gt;
  bool wait_until(unique_lock&lt;mutex&gt;&amp; lock,
                  const chrono::time_point&lt;Clock, Duration&gt;&amp; abs_time,
                  Predicate pred);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-32- <i>Effects</i>: <ins>Equivalent to:</ins>
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
while (!pred())
  if (wait_until(lock, abs_time) == cv_status::timeout)
    return pred();
return true;
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
<del>-33- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>pred()</tt></del>
<p/>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-36- <i>Throws</i>: <tt>std::system_error</tt> when an exception is required (30.2.2 [thread.req.exception])<ins>, 
timeout-related exceptions (30.2.4 [thread.req.timing]), or any exception thrown by <tt>pred</tt></ins>.
<p/>
[&hellip;]
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class Rep, class Period, class Predicate&gt;
  bool wait_for(unique_lock&lt;mutex&gt;&amp; lock,
                const chrono::duration&lt;Rep, Period&gt;&amp; rel_time,
                Predicate pred);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-39- <i>Effects</i>: <del>as if</del><ins>Equivalent to:</ins>
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
return wait_until(lock, chrono::steady_clock::now() + rel_time, std::move(pred));
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
<del>-42- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>pred()</tt></del>
<p/>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-44- <i>Throws</i>: <tt>std::system_error</tt> when an exception is required (30.2.2 [thread.req.exception])<ins>, 
timeout-related exceptions (30.2.4 [thread.req.timing]), or any exception thrown by <tt>pred</tt></ins>.
<p/>
[&hellip;]
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Change 30.5.2 [thread.condition.condvarany] as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class Lock, class Predicate&gt;
  void wait(Lock&amp; lock, Predicate pred);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-14- <i>Effects</i>: <ins>Equivalent to:</ins>
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
while (!pred())
  wait(lock);
</pre></blockquote>
</blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class Lock, class Clock, class Duration&gt;
  cv_status wait_until(Lock&amp; lock, const chrono::time_point&lt;Clock, Duration&gt;&amp; abs_time);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-18- <i>Throws</i>: <tt>system_error</tt> when an exception is required (30.2.2 [thread.req.exception])
<ins>or any timeout-related exceptions (30.2.4 [thread.req.timing])</ins>.
<p/>
[&hellip;]
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class Lock, class Rep, class Period&gt;
  cv_status wait_for(Lock&amp; lock, const chrono::duration&lt;Rep, Period&gt;&amp; rel_time);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-20- <i>Effects</i>: <del>as if</del><ins>Equivalent to:</ins>
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
return wait_until(lock, chrono::steady_clock::now() + rel_time);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-23- <i>Throws</i>: <tt>system_error</tt> when an exception is required (30.2.2 [thread.req.exception])
<ins>or any timeout-related exceptions (30.2.4 [thread.req.timing])</ins>.
<p/>
[&hellip;]
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class Lock, class Clock, class Duration, class Predicate&gt;
  bool wait_until(Lock&amp; lock, const chrono::time_point&lt;Clock, Duration&gt;&amp; abs_time, Predicate pred);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-25- <i>Effects</i>: <ins>Equivalent to:</ins>
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
while (!pred())
  if (wait_until(lock, abs_time) == cv_status::timeout)
    return pred();
return true;
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
-26- <del><i>Returns</i>: <tt>pred()</tt></del><ins>[<i>Note</i>: There is no blocking if <tt>pred()</tt> is initially <tt>true</tt>, 
even if the timeout has already expired. &mdash; <i>end note</i>]</ins>
<p/>
-27- [<i>Note</i>: The returned value indicates whether the predicate evaluates to <tt>true</tt> regardless of whether the
timeout was triggered. <i>end note</i>]
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class Lock, class Rep, class Period, class Predicate&gt;
  bool wait_for(Lock&amp; lock, const chrono::duration&lt;Rep, Period&gt;&amp; rel_time, Predicate pred);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-28- <i>Effects</i>: <del>as if</del><ins>Equivalent to:</ins>
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
return wait_until(lock, chrono::steady_clock::now() + rel_time, std::move(pred));
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
<del>-29- [<i>Note</i>: There is no blocking if <tt>pred()</tt> is initially <tt>true</tt>, 
even if the timeout has already expired. &mdash; <i>end note</i>]</del>
<del>-30- <i>Postcondition</i>: <tt>lock</tt> is locked by the calling thread.</del>
<p/>
<del>-31- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>pred()</tt></del>
<p/>
<del>-32- [<i>Note</i>: The returned value indicates whether the predicate evaluates to <tt>true</tt> 
regardless of whether the timeout was triggered. &mdash; <i>end note</i>]</del>
<p/>
<del>-33- <i>Throws</i>: <tt>system_error</tt> when an exception is required (30.2.2 [thread.req.exception]).</del>
<p/>
<del>-34- <i>Error conditions</i>:</del>
</p>
<ul>
<li><del>equivalent error condition from <tt>lock.lock()</tt> or <tt>lock.unlock()</tt>.</del></li>
</ul>
</blockquote></blockquote>

</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2094"></a>2094. <tt>duration</tt> conversion overflow shouldn't participate in overload resolution</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.11.5.1 [time.duration.cons] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Vicente J. Botet Escriba <b>Opened:</b> 2011-10-31 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#time.duration.cons">issues</a> in [time.duration.cons].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
20.11.5.1 [time.duration.cons] says:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class Rep2, class Period2&gt;
  constexpr duration(const duration&lt;Rep2, Period2&gt;&amp; d);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
<i>Remarks</i>: This constructor shall not participate in overload resolution unless 
<tt>treat_as_floating_point&lt;rep&gt;::value</tt> is <tt>true</tt> or both 
<tt>ratio_divide&lt;Period2, period&gt;::den</tt> is <tt>1</tt> and <tt>treat_as_floating_point&lt;Rep2&gt;::value</tt> 
is <tt>false</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
<p>
The evaluation of <tt>ratio_divide&lt;Period2, period&gt;::den</tt> could make 
<tt>ratio_divide&lt;Period2, period&gt;::num</tt> overflow.
<p/>
This occur for example when we try to create a millisecond (<tt>period</tt>=<tt>ratio&lt;1,1000&gt;</tt>) 
from an exa-second (<tt>Period2</tt>=<tt>ratio&lt;10<sup>18</sup>&gt;</tt>).
<p/>
<tt>ratio_divide&lt;ratio&lt;10<sup>18</sup>&gt;, ratio&lt;1,1000&gt;&gt;::num</tt> is 
<tt>10<sup>21</sup></tt> which overflows which makes the compiler error.
<p/>
If the function <tt>f</tt> is overloaded with milliseconds and seconds
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
void f(milliseconds);
void f(seconds);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
The following fails to compile.
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
duration&lt;int,exa&gt; r(1);
f(r);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
While the conversion to seconds work, the conversion to milliseconds make the program fail at compile time. 
In my opinion, this program should be well formed and the constructor from <tt>duration&lt;int,exa&gt;</tt> 
to milliseconds shouldn't participate in overload resolution as the result can not be represented.
<p/>
I think the wording of the standard can be improved so no misinterpretations are possible by adding that 
"no overflow is induced by the conversion".
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<p>Change the following paragraphs of 20.11.5.1 [time.duration.cons] p4 indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class Rep2, class Period2&gt;
  constexpr duration(const duration&lt;Rep2, Period2&gt;&amp; d);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
<i>Remarks</i>: This constructor shall not participate in overload resolution unless <ins>no 
overflow is induced in the conversion and</ins> <tt>treat_as_floating_point&lt;rep&gt;::value</tt> 
is <tt>true</tt> or both <tt>ratio_divide&lt;Period2, period&gt;::den</tt> is <tt>1</tt> and 
<tt>treat_as_floating_point&lt;Rep2&gt;::value</tt> is <tt>false</tt>. [ <i>Note</i>: This 
requirement prevents implicit truncation error when converting between integral-based duration 
types. Such a construction could easily lead to confusion about the value of the 
duration. &mdash; <i>end note</i> ]
</p></blockquote></blockquote>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2095"></a>2095. <tt>promise</tt> and <tt>packaged_task</tt> missing constructors needed for uses-allocator construction</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.6.5 [futures.promise], 30.6.9 [futures.task] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2011-11-01 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#futures.promise">active issues</a> in [futures.promise].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#futures.promise">issues</a> in [futures.promise].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
This example is ill-formed according to C++11 because <tt>uses_allocator&lt;promise&lt;R&gt;, A&gt;::value</tt> is true, but
<tt>is_constructible&lt;promise&lt;R&gt;, A, promise&lt;R&gt;&amp;&amp;&gt;::value</tt> is false. Similarly for <tt>packaged_task</tt>.
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;future&gt;
#include &lt;memory&gt;
#include &lt;tuple&gt;

using namespace std;

typedef packaged_task&lt;void()&gt; task;
typedef promise&lt;void&gt; prom;
allocator&lt;task&gt; a;

tuple&lt;task, prom&gt; t1{ allocator_arg, a };
tuple&lt;task, prom&gt; t2{ allocator_arg, a, task{}, prom{} };
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
<p/>
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Add to 30.6.5 [futures.promise], class template <tt>promise</tt> synopsis, 
as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template &lt;class R&gt;
  class promise {
  public:
    promise();
    template &lt;class Allocator&gt;
    promise(allocator_arg_t, const Allocator&amp; a);
    <ins>template &lt;class Allocator&gt;
    promise(allocator_arg_t, const Allocator&amp; a, promise&amp;&amp; rhs) noexcept;</ins>
    promise(promise&amp;&amp; rhs) noexcept;
    promise(const promise&amp; rhs) = delete;
    ~promise();	
    [&hellip;]
  };
  [&hellip;]
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 30.6.5 [futures.promise] as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
promise(promise&amp;&amp; rhs) noexcept;
<ins>template &lt;class Allocator&gt;
promise(allocator_arg_t, const Allocator&amp; a, promise&amp;&amp; rhs) noexcept;</ins>
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-5- <i>Effects</i>: constructs a new <tt>promise</tt> object and transfers ownership of 
the shared state of <tt>rhs</tt> (if any) to the newly-constructed object.
<p/>
-6- <i>Postcondition</i>: <tt>rhs</tt> has no shared state.
<p/>
<ins>-?- [<i>Note</i>: <tt>a</tt> is not used &mdash; <i>end note</i>]</ins>
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Add to 30.6.9 [futures.task], class template <tt>packaged_task</tt> synopsis, 
as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template&lt;class&gt; class packaged_task; // <i>undefined</i>

  template&lt;class R, class... ArgTypes&gt;
  class packaged_task&lt;R(ArgTypes...)&gt; {
  public:
    // construction and destruction
    packaged_task() noexcept;
    template &lt;class F&gt;
    explicit packaged_task(F&amp;&amp; f);
    <ins>template &lt;class Allocator&gt;
    explicit packaged_task(allocator_arg_t, const Allocator&amp; a) noexcept;
    template &lt;class Allocator&gt;
    explicit packaged_task(allocator_arg_t, const Allocator&amp; a, packaged_task&amp;&amp; rhs) noexcept;
    template&lt;class Allocator&gt;
    explicit packaged_task(allocator_arg_t, const Allocator&amp; a, const packaged_task&amp;) = delete;</ins>
    template &lt;class F, class Allocator&gt;
    explicit packaged_task(allocator_arg_t, const Allocator&amp; a, F&amp;&amp; f);
    ~packaged_task();
    [&hellip;]
  };
  [&hellip;]
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 30.6.9.1 [futures.task.members] as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
packaged_task() noexcept;
<ins>template &lt;class Allocator&gt;
  explicit packaged_task(allocator_arg_t, const Allocator&amp; a) noexcept;</ins>
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-1- <i>Effects</i>: constructs a <tt>packaged_task</tt> object with no shared state and no stored task.
<p/>
<ins>-?- [<i>Note</i>: <tt>a</tt> is not used &mdash; <i>end note</i>]</ins>
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<p>[&hellip;]</p>
<blockquote><pre>
packaged_task(packaged_task&amp;&amp; rhs) noexcept;
<ins>template &lt;class Allocator&gt;
  explicit packaged_task(allocator_arg_t, const Allocator&amp; a, packaged_task&amp;&amp; rhs) noexcept;</ins>
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-5- <i>Effects</i>: constructs a new <tt>packaged_task</tt> object and transfers ownership of <tt>rhs</tt>s 
shared state to <tt>*this</tt>, leaving <tt>rhs</tt> with no shared state. Moves the stored task from <tt>rhs</tt> 
to <tt>*this</tt>.
<p/>
-6- <i>Postcondition</i>: <tt>rhs</tt> has no shared state.
<p/>
<ins>-?- [<i>Note</i>: <tt>a</tt> is not used &mdash; <i>end note</i>]</ins>
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>

</li>
</ol>

<blockquote><pre>
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
</p></blockquote></blockquote>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2096"></a>2096. Incorrect constraints of <tt>future::get</tt> in regard to <tt>MoveAssignable</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.6.6 [futures.unique_future] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Tentatively Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-11-02 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#futures.unique_future">issues</a> in [futures.unique_future].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Tentatively Ready">Tentatively Ready</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
30.6.6 [futures.unique_future] paragraph 15 says the following:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
R future::get();
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
&hellip;
<p/>
-15- <i>Returns</i>:
</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p><tt>future::get()</tt> returns the value stored in the objects shared state. If the type of the value is
<tt>MoveAssignable</tt> the returned value is moved, otherwise it is copied.
<p/>
&hellip;
</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
There are some problems with the description:
<p/>
"If the type of the value is <tt>MoveAssignable</tt> the returned value is moved, otherwise it is copied."
</p>
<ol>
<li>It seems to impose unrealistic constraints on implementations, because how could an implementor 
recognize whether a user-defined type satisfies the semantics of <tt>MoveAssignable</tt>? This should be
based solely on a pure expression-based requirement, if this is an requirement for implementations.
</li>
<li>
Reducing <tt>MoveAssignable</tt> to the plain expression part <tt>std::is_move_assignable</tt> 
would solvs (1), but raises another question, namely why a <em>move-assignment</em> should be relevant
for a function return based on the value stored in the future state? We would better fall back to
<tt>std::is_move_constructible</tt> instead.
</li>
<li><p>The last criticism I have is about the part
<p/>
"the returned value is moved, otherwise it is copied"
<p/>
because an implementation won't be able to recognize what the user-defined type 
will do during an expression that is prepared by the implementation. I think the 
wording is intended to <em>allow</em> a move by seeding with an rvalue expression via
<tt>std::move</tt> (or equivalent), else the result will be an effective
copy construction.
</p>
</li>
</ol>

<p><i>[2011-11-28 Moved to Tentatively Ready after 5 positive votes on c++std-lib.]</i></p>




<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<p>Change 30.6.6 [futures.unique_future] paragraph 15 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
R future::get();
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
&hellip;
<p/>
-15- <i>Returns</i>:
</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p><tt>future::get()</tt> returns the value <ins><tt>v</tt></ins> stored in the objects shared 
state <ins>as <tt>std::move(v)</tt></ins>. <del>If the type of the value is <tt>MoveAssignable</tt> 
the returned value is moved, otherwise it is copied.</del>
<p/>
&hellip;
</p>
</li>
</ul>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2097"></a>2097. <tt>packaged_task</tt> constructors should be constrained</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.6.9.1 [futures.task.members] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2011-11-02 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#futures.task.members">issues</a> in [futures.task.members].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
With the proposed resolution of <a href="lwg-active.html#2067">2067</a>, this no longer selects the
copy constructor:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
std::packaged_task&lt;void()&gt; p1;
std::packaged_task&lt;void()&gt; p2(p1);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
Instead this constructor is a better match:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class F&gt;
 explicit packaged_task(F&amp;&amp; f);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
This attempts to package a <tt>packaged_task</tt>, which internally tries to
copy <tt>p2</tt>, which fails because the copy constructor is deleted. For at
least one implementation the resulting error message is much less
helpful than the expected "cannot call deleted function" because it
happens after instantiating several more templates rather than in the
context where the constructor is called.
<p/>
I believe the solution is to constrain to the template constructors so
the template argument <tt>F</tt> cannot be deduced as (possibly <i>cv</i>)
<tt>packaged_task&amp;</tt> or <tt>packaged_task</tt>.  It could be argued 
this constraint is already implied because <tt>packaged_task</tt> is not 
copyable and the template constructors require that "invoking a copy of <tt>f</tt> 
shall behave the same as invoking <tt>f</tt>".
<p/>
Daniel points out that the variadic constructor of <tt>std::thread</tt>
described in 30.3.1.2 [thread.thread.constr] has a similar problem and 
suggests a similar wording change, which has been integrated below.
<p/>
An alternative is to declare <tt>thread(thread&amp;)</tt> and
<tt>packaged_task(packaged_task&amp;)</tt> as deleted.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Insert a new Remarks element to 30.3.1.2 [thread.thread.constr] around p3 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class F, class ...Args&gt; explicit thread(F&amp;&amp; f, Args&amp;&amp;... args);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
-3- <i>Requires</i>: <tt>F</tt> and each <tt>Ti</tt> in <tt>Args</tt> shall satisfy the <tt>MoveConstructible</tt> 
requirements. <tt><i>INVOKE</i>(<i>DECAY_COPY</i> ( std::forward&lt;F&gt;(f)), <i>DECAY_COPY</i> (std::forward&lt;Args&gt;(args))...)</tt> 
(20.8.2) shall be a valid expression.
<p/>
<ins>-?- <i>Remarks</i>: This constructor shall not participate in overload resolution if <tt>decay&lt;F&gt;::type</tt> 
is the same type as <tt>std::thread</tt>.</ins>
</p>
</li>

<li><p>Insert a new Remarks element to 30.6.9.1 [futures.task.members] around p2 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class F&gt;
  packaged_task(F&amp;&amp; f);
template &lt;class F, class Allocator&gt;
  explicit packaged_task(allocator_arg_t, const Allocator&amp; a, F&amp;&amp; f);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
-2- <i>Requires</i>: <tt><i>INVOKE</i>(f, t1, t2, ..., tN, R)</tt>, where <tt>t1, t2, ..., tN</tt> are values of the corresponding
types in <tt>ArgTypes...</tt>, shall be a valid expression. Invoking a copy of <tt>f</tt> shall behave the same as invoking <tt>f</tt>.
<p/>
<ins>-?- <i>Remarks</i>: These constructors shall not participate in overload resolution if <tt>decay&lt;F&gt;::type</tt> 
is the same type as <tt>std::packaged_task&lt;R(ArgTypes...)&gt;</tt>.</ins>
</p>
</li>

</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2098"></a>2098. Minor Inconsistency between <tt>promise::set_value</tt> and <tt>promise::set_value_at_thread_exit</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.6.5 [futures.promise] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Pete Becker <b>Opened:</b> 2011-11-14 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#futures.promise">active issues</a> in [futures.promise].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#futures.promise">issues</a> in [futures.promise].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
30.6.5 [futures.promise]&#47;16 says that <tt>promise::set_value(const R&amp;)</tt> throws any exceptions 
thrown by <tt>R</tt>'s copy constructor, and that <tt>promise_set_value(R&amp;&amp;)</tt> throws any exceptions 
thrown by <tt>R</tt>'s move constructor.
<p/>
30.6.5 [futures.promise]&#47;22 is the Throws: clause for <tt>promise::set_value_at_thread_exit</tt>. It 
has no corresponding requirements, only that these functions throw "<tt>future_error</tt> if an error condition 
occurs."
<p/>
Daniel suggests wording to fix this: The approach is a bit more ambitious and also attempts to fix wording glitches
of 30.6.5 [futures.promise]&#47;16, because it would be beyond acceptable efforts of implementations to 
determine whether a constructor call of a user-defined type will indeed call a copy constructor or move constructor 
(in the first case it might be a template constructor, in the second case it might also be a copy-constructor, 
if the type has no move constructor).
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change 30.6.5 [futures.promise]&#47;16 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
void promise::set_value(const R&amp; r);
void promise::set_value(R&amp;&amp; r);
void promise&lt;R&amp;&gt;::set_value(R&amp; r);
void promise&lt;void&gt;::set_value();
</pre><blockquote><p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-16- <i>Throws</i>:
</p>
<ul>
<li><tt>future_error</tt> if its shared state already has a stored value or exception, or</li>
<li>for the first version, any exception thrown by the <del>copy constructor 
of</del><ins>constructor selected to copy an object of</ins> <tt>R</tt>, or</li>
<li>for the second version, any exception thrown by the <del>move constructor 
of</del><ins>constructor selected to move an object of</ins> <tt>R</tt>.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 30.6.5 [futures.promise]&#47;22 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
void promise::set_value_at_thread_exit(const R&amp; r);
void promise::set_value_at_thread_exit(R&amp;&amp; r);
void promise&lt;R&amp;&gt;::set_value_at_thread_exit(R&amp; r);
void promise&lt;void&gt;::set_value_at_thread_exit();
</pre><blockquote><p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-16- <i>Throws</i>: <del><tt>future_error</tt> if an error condition occurs.</del>
</p>
<ul>
<li><ins><tt>future_error</tt> if its shared state already has a stored value or exception, or</ins></li>
<li><ins>for the first version, any exception thrown by the constructor selected to copy an object of <tt>R</tt>, or</ins></li>
<li><ins>for the second version, any exception thrown by the constructor selected to move an object of <tt>R</tt>.</ins></li>
</ul>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2099"></a>2099. Unnecessary constraints of <tt>va_start()</tt> usage</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 18.10 [support.runtime] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-11-12 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#support.runtime">issues</a> in [support.runtime].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
In 18.10 [support.runtime] p3 we find (emphasis mine):
</p>
<blockquote><p>
The restrictions that ISO C places on the second parameter to the <tt>va_start()</tt> macro in header <tt>&lt;stdarg.h&gt;</tt>
are different in this International Standard. The parameter <tt>parmN</tt> is the identifier of the rightmost parameter
in the variable parameter list of the function definition (the one just before the ...).227 <em>If the parameter
<tt>parmN</tt> is <strong>declared</strong> with a <strong>function</strong>, <strong>array</strong></em>, or reference type, 
or with a type that is not compatible with the type that results when passing an argument for which there is no parameter, 
the behavior is undefined.
</p></blockquote>

<p>
It seems astonishing that the constraints on function types and array types imposes these 
on the <strong>declared</strong> parameter <tt>parmN</tt>, not to the adjusted one (which would
not require this extra wording, because that is implicit). This seems to say that a function 
definition of the form (Thanks to Johannes Schaub for this example)
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;stdarg.h&gt;

void f(char const paramN[], ...) {
  va_list ap;
  va_start(ap, paramN);
  va_end(ap);
}
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
would produce undefined behaviour when used.
<p/>
Similar wording exists in C99 and in the most recent C11 draft in 7.16.1.4 p4
<p/>
In my opinion the constraints in regard to array types and function types are
unnecessary and should be relaxed. Are there really implementations out in the 
wild that would (according to my understanding incorrectly) provide the declared and
not the adjusted type of <tt>paramN</tt> as deduced type to <tt>va_start()</tt>?
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<p>Change 18.10 [support.runtime] p3 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><p>
The restrictions that ISO C places on the second parameter to the <tt>va_start()</tt> macro in header <tt>&lt;stdarg.h&gt;</tt>
are different in this International Standard. The parameter <tt>parmN</tt> is the identifier of the rightmost parameter
in the variable parameter list of the function definition (the one just before the ...).227 If the parameter
<tt>parmN</tt> is <del>declared with</del><ins>of</ins> a <del>function, array, or</del> reference type, or 
<del>with</del><ins>of</ins> a type that is not compatible with the type that results when passing an argument for 
which there is no parameter, the behavior is undefined.
</p></blockquote>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2100"></a>2100. timed waiting functions cannot timeout if <tt>launch::async</tt> policy used</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.6.8 [futures.async] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2011-11-14 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#futures.async">active issues</a> in [futures.async].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#futures.async">issues</a> in [futures.async].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
30.6.8 [futures.async] p5 says
</p>

<blockquote>
<p>
If the implementation chooses the <tt>launch::async</tt> policy,
</p>
<ul><li>a call to a waiting function on an asynchronous return object that shares the 
shared state created by this <tt>async</tt> call shall block until the associated thread has
completed, as if joined (30.3.1.5 [thread.thread.member]);</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>

<p>
That should say a non-timed waiting function, otherwise, calling a timed waiting function 
can block indefinitely waiting for the associated thread to complete, rather than timing 
out after the specified time.
<p/>
Since <tt>std::thread</tt> does not provide a <tt>timed_join()</tt> function (nor does
Pthreads, making it impossible on many platforms) there is no way for a timed waiting 
function to try to join but return early due to timeout, therefore timed waiting 
functions either cannot guarantee to timeout or cannot be used to meet the requirement 
to block until the thread is joined.  In order to allow timed waiting functions to
timeout the requirement should only apply to non-timed waiting functions.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<p>Change 30.6.8 [futures.async] p5 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>
If the implementation chooses the <tt>launch::async</tt> policy,
</p>
<ul><li>a call to a <ins>non-timed</ins> waiting function on an asynchronous return object 
that shares the shared state created by this <tt>async</tt> call shall block until the 
associated thread has completed, as if joined (30.3.1.5 [thread.thread.member]);</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2101"></a>2101. Some transformation types can produce impossible types</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.9.7 [meta.trans] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-11-18 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Table 53 &mdash; "Reference modifications" says in regard to the type trait 
<tt>add_lvalue_reference</tt> (emphasize mine)
</p>

<blockquote>
<p>
If <tt>T</tt> names an object or <strong>function</strong> type then the member typedef type
shall name <tt>T&amp;</tt>;
</p>
</blockquote>

<p>
The problem with this specification is that function types with <i>cv</i>-qualifier or <i>ref</i>-qualifier, 
like
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
void() const
void() &amp;
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
are also affected by the first part of the rule, but this would essentially mean, that
instantiating <tt>add_lvalue_reference</tt> with such a type would attempt to form
a type that is not defined in the C++ type system, namely
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
void(&amp;)() const
void(&amp;)() &amp;
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
The general policy for <i>TransformationTrait</i>s is to define always some meaningful 
mapping type, but this does not hold for <tt>add_lvalue_reference</tt>, <tt>add_rvalue_reference</tt>,
and in addition to these two for <tt>add_pointer</tt> as well. The latter one would 
attempt to form the invalid types
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
void(*)() const
void(*)() &amp;
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
A possible reason why those traits were specified in this way is that in C++03 (and that means
for TR1), <i>cv</i>-qualifier were underspecified in the core language and several compilers
just ignored them during template instantiations. This situation became fixed by adopting
CWG issues <a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#295">295</a> and 
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#547">547</a>.
<p/>
While there is possibly some core language clarification needed (see reflector messages
starting from c++std-core-20740), it seems also clear that the library should fix the
specification. The suggested resolution follows the style of the specification of the
support concepts <tt>PointeeType</tt> and <tt>ReferentType</tt> defined in 
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2009/n2914.pdf">N2914</a>.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change Table 53 &mdash; "Reference modifications" in 20.9.7.2 [meta.trans.ref] as indicated:</p>

<table border="1">
<caption>Table 53 &mdash; Reference modifications</caption>
<tr>
<th>Template</th>
<th>Comments</th>
</tr> 

<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center">
<tt>&hellip;</tt>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>template &lt;class T&gt;<br/>
struct<br/>
add_lvalue_reference;</tt>
</td>
<td>
If <tt>T</tt> names an object <tt>type</tt> or <ins>if <tt>T</tt> names a</ins> function type <ins>that does not have<br/>
<i>cv</i>-qualifiers or a <i>ref</i>-qualifier</ins> then the member typedef <tt>type</tt><br/>
shall name <tt>T&amp;</tt>; otherwise, if <tt>T</tt> names a type rvalue reference to <tt>T1</tt> then<br/>
the member typedef <tt>type</tt> shall name <tt>T1&amp;</tt>; otherwise, <tt>type</tt> shall name <tt>T</tt>.
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>template &lt;class T&gt;<br/>
struct<br/>
add_rvalue_reference;</tt>
</td>
<td>
If <tt>T</tt> names an object <tt>type</tt> or <ins>if <tt>T</tt> names a</ins> function type <ins>that does not have<br/>
<i>cv</i>-qualifiers or a <i>ref</i>-qualifier</ins> then the member typedef <tt>type</tt><br/>
shall name <tt>T&amp;&amp;</tt>; otherwise, <tt>type</tt> shall name <tt>T</tt>. [ <i>Note</i>: This rule reflects<br/>
the semantics of reference collapsing (8.3.2 [dcl.ref]). For example, when a type <tt>T</tt><br/>
names a type <tt>T1&amp;</tt>, the type <tt>add_rvalue_reference&lt;T&gt;::type</tt> is not an<br/>
rvalue reference. &mdash; <i>end note</i> ]
</td>
</tr>
</table>

</li>

<li><p>Change Table 56 &mdash; "Pointer modifications" in 20.9.7.5 [meta.trans.ptr] as indicated:</p>

<table border="1">
<caption>Table 56 &mdash; Pointer modifications</caption>
<tr>
<th>Template</th>
<th>Comments</th>
</tr> 

<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center">
<tt>&hellip;</tt>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>template &lt;class T&gt;<br/>
struct add_pointer;</tt>
</td>
<td>
<del>The member typedef <tt>type</tt> shall name the same type as</del><br/>
<ins>If <tt>T</tt> names a function type that has <i>cv</i>-qualifiers or a <i>ref</i>-qualifier<br/>
then the member typedef <tt>type</tt> shall name <tt>T</tt>; otherwise, it<br/> 
shall name the same type as</ins> <tt>remove_reference&lt;T&gt;::type*</tt>.
</td>
</tr>

</table>

</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2102"></a>2102. Why is <tt>std::launch</tt> an implementation-defined type?</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.6.1 [futures.overview] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Tentatively Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2011-11-20 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#futures.overview">active issues</a> in [futures.overview].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#futures.overview">issues</a> in [futures.overview].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Tentatively Ready">Tentatively Ready</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
30.6.1 [futures.overview] says <tt>std::launch</tt> is an
implementation-defined bitmask type, which would usually mean the
implementation can choose whether to define an enumeration type, or a
<tt>bitset</tt>, or an integer type. But in the case of <tt>std::launch</tt> it's
required to be a scoped enumeration type, 
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
enum class launch : <i>unspecified</i> {
  async = <i>unspecified</i>,
  deferred = <i>unspecified</i>,
  <i>implementation-defined</i>
};
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
so what is implementation-defined about it, and what is an implementation 
supposed to document about its choice?
</p>

<p><i>[2011-12-02 Moved to Tentatively Ready after 6 positive votes on c++std-lib.]</i></p>
 



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<p>Change 30.6.1 [futures.overview] paragraph 2 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><p>
The enum type <tt>launch</tt> is <del>an implementation-defined</del><ins>a</ins> bitmask type 
(17.5.2.1.3 [bitmask.types]) with <tt>launch::async</tt> and <tt>launch::deferred</tt> 
denoting individual bits. [ <i>Note</i>: Implementations can provide bitmasks to specify restrictions
on task interaction by functions launched by <tt>async()</tt> applicable to a corresponding subset of
available launch policies. Implementations can extend the behavior of the first overload of <tt>async()</tt> by
adding their extensions to the launch policy under the as if rule. &mdash; <i>end note</i> ]
</p></blockquote>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2103"></a>2103. <tt>std::allocator_traits&lt;std::allocator&lt;T&gt;&gt;::propagate_on_container_move_assignment</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.6.9 [default.allocator] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Ai Azuma <b>Opened:</b> 2011-11-08 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#default.allocator">issues</a> in [default.allocator].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
&quot;<tt>std::allocator_traits&lt;std::allocator&lt;T&gt;&gt;::propagate_on_container_move_assignment::value</tt>&quot;
is specified as &quot;false&quot;, according to (20.6.9 [default.allocator]) and (20.6.8.1 [allocator.traits.types]).
However, according to (23.2.1 [container.requirements.general]), this specification leads to the unneeded requirements
(<tt>MoveInsertable</tt> and <tt>MoveAssignable</tt> of the value type) on the move assignment operator of containers
with the default allocator. 
<p/>
Proposed resolution:
<p/>
Either of the following two changes;  
</p>
<ol>
<li>
adding the nested typedef like
&quot;<tt>typedef std::true_type propagate_on_container_move_assignment;</tt>&quot;
in the definition of <tt>std::allocator</tt> class template,
</li>
<li>
adding the explicit partial specialization of
&quot;<tt>std::allocator_traits</tt>&quot; class template for &quot;<tt>std::allocator</tt>&quot;
class template, in which &quot;<tt>propagate_on_container_move_assignment</tt>&quot;
nested typedef is specified as &quot;<tt>std::true_type</tt>&quot;. 
</li>
</ol>
<p>
Pablo prefers the first resolution.
</p>

<p><i>[2011-12-02: Pablo comments]</i></p>


<p>
This issue has potentially some overlap with <a href="lwg-active.html#2108">2108</a>. Should the trait <tt>always_compare_equal</tt>
been added, this issue's resolution should be improved based on that.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<p>Change 20.6.9 [default.allocator], the class template <tt>allocator</tt> synopsis as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template &lt;class T&gt; class allocator;

  <i>// specialize for <tt>void</tt>:</i>
  template &lt;&gt; class allocator&lt;void&gt; {
  public:
    typedef void* pointer;
    typedef const void* const_pointer;
    <i>// reference-to-<tt>void</tt> members are impossible.</i>
    typedef void value_type;
    template &lt;class U&gt; struct rebind { typedef allocator&lt;U&gt; other; };
  };

  template &lt;class T&gt; class allocator {
  public:
    typedef size_t size_type;
    typedef ptrdiff_t difference_type;
    typedef T* pointer;
    typedef const T* const_pointer;
    typedef T&amp; reference;
    typedef const T&amp; const_reference;
    typedef T value_type;
    template &lt;class U&gt; struct rebind { typedef allocator&lt;U&gt; other; };
    <ins>typedef true_type propagate_on_container_move_assignment;</ins>

    [&hellip;]
  };
}
</pre></blockquote>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2104"></a>2104. <tt>unique_lock</tt> move-assignment should not be <tt>noexcept</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.4.2.2 [thread.lock.unique] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Anthony Williams <b>Opened:</b> 2011-11-27 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
I just noticed that the <tt>unique_lock</tt> move-assignment operator is declared <tt>noexcept</tt>. This 
function may call <tt>unlock()</tt> on the wrapped mutex, which may throw.
<p/>
Suggested change: remove the <tt>noexcept</tt> specification from <tt>unique_lock::operator=(unique_lock&amp;&amp;)</tt> 
in 30.4.2.2 [thread.lock.unique] and 30.4.2.2.1 [thread.lock.unique.cons]. 
<p/>
Daniel:
<p/>
I think the situation is actually a bit more complex as it initially looks.
<p/>
First, the effects of the move-assignment operator are (emphasize mine):
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Effects</i>: <strong>If</strong> <tt>owns</tt> calls <tt>pm->unlock()</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
Now according to the <tt>BasicLockable</tt> requirements:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<tt>m.unlock()</tt>
<p/>
3 <i>Requires</i>: The current execution agent shall hold a lock on <tt>m</tt>.
<p/>
4 <i>Effects</i>: Releases a lock on <tt>m</tt> held by the current execution agent.
<p/>
<i>Throws</i>: Nothing.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
This shows that unlock itself is a function with narrow contract and for 
this reasons no unlock function of a mutex or lock itself does have a noexcept 
specifier according to our mental model.
<p/>
Now the move-assignment operator <strong>attempts</strong> to satisfy these
requirement of the function and calls it only when it assumes that the conditions 
are ok, so from the view-point of the caller of the move-assignment operator it 
looks as if the move-assignment operator would in total a function with a
wide contract.
<p/>
The problem with this analysis so far is, that it depends on the assumed 
correctness of the state "owns".
<p/>
Looking at the construction or state-changing functions, there do exist several 
ones that depend on caller-code satisfying the requirements and there is one 
guy, who looks most suspicious:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<tt>unique_lock(mutex_type&amp; m, adopt_lock_t);</tt>
<p/>
11 <i>Requires</i>: The calling thread own the mutex.<br/>
[&hellip;]<br/>
13 <i>Postconditions</i>: <tt>pm == &amp;m</tt> and <tt>owns == true</tt>.<br/>
</p></blockquote>
<p>
because this function does not even call <tt>lock()</tt> (which may, but is not 
required to throw an exception if the calling thread does already own the mutex). 
So we have in fact still a move-assignment operator that might throw an exception, 
if the mutex was either constructed or used (call of lock) incorrectly.
<p/>
The correct fix seems to me to also add a "<i>Throws</i>: Nothing" element to
the move-assignment operator, because using it correctly shall now throw an
exception.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ol>
<li>
<p>Change 30.4.2.2 [thread.lock.unique], class template <tt>unique_lock</tt> synopsis as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template &lt;class Mutex&gt;
  class unique_lock {
  public:
    typedef Mutex mutex_type;
    [&hellip;]
    unique_lock(unique_lock&amp;&amp; u) noexcept;
    unique_lock&amp; operator=(unique_lock&amp;&amp; u) <del>noexcept</del>;
    [&hellip;]
  };
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li>
<p>Change 30.4.2.2.1 [thread.lock.unique.cons] around p22 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
unique_lock&amp; operator=(unique_lock&amp;&amp; u) <del>noexcept</del>;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-22- <i>Effects</i>: If <tt>owns</tt> calls <tt>pm->unlock()</tt>.
<p/>
-23- <i>Postconditions</i>: <tt>pm == u_p.pm</tt> and <tt>owns == u_p.owns</tt> (where <tt>u_p</tt> 
is the state of <tt>u</tt> just prior to this construction), <tt>u.pm == 0</tt> and <tt>u.owns == false</tt>.
<p/>
-24- [<i>Note</i>: With a recursive mutex it is possible for both <tt>*this</tt> and <tt>u</tt> to own 
the same mutex before the assignment. In this case, <tt>*this</tt> will own the mutex after the assignment 
and <tt>u</tt> will not. &mdash; <i>end note</i>]
</p>
<ins>-??- <i>Throws</i>: Nothing.</ins>
<p/>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2105"></a>2105. Inconsistent requirements on <tt>const_iterator</tt>'s <tt>value_type</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.2.1 [container.requirements.general] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jeffrey Yasskin <b>Opened:</b> 2011-11-28 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#container.requirements.general">issues</a> in [container.requirements.general].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
In the FDIS, Table 96 specifies <tt>X::const_iterator</tt> as a "constant iterator type 
whose value type is <tt>T</tt>". However, Table 97 specifies <tt>X::const_reverse_iterator</tt> 
as an "iterator type whose value type is <tt>const T</tt>" and which is defined as 
<tt>reverse_iterator&lt;const_iterator&gt;</tt>. But <tt>reverse_iterator::value_type</tt> is 
just "<tt>typename iterator_traits&lt;Iterator&gt;::value_type</tt>" 24.5.1.1 [reverse.iterator], 
so <tt>const_iterator</tt> and <tt>const_reverse_iterator</tt> must have the same <tt>value_type</tt>.
</p>
<p>
The resolution to issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#322">322</a> implies that
<tt>const_reverse_iterator</tt> should change.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<p>Change Table 97 &mdash; "Reversible container requirements" as indicated</p>

<table border="1">
<caption>Table 97 &mdash; Reversible container requirements</caption>
<tr>
<th>Expression</th>
<th>Return type</th>
<th>Assertion&#47;note pre-&#47;post-condition</th>
<th>Complexity</th>
</tr> 

<tr>
<td>
<tt>X::reverse_-<br/>
iterator</tt>
</td>
<td>
iterator type whose value type<br/>
is <tt>T</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>reverse_iterator&lt;iterator&gt;</tt>
</td>
<td>
compile time
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>X::const_-<br/>
reverse_-<br/>
iterator</tt>
</td>
<td>
<ins>constant</ins> iterator type whose value type<br/>
is <tt><del>const</del> T</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>reverse_iterator&lt;const_iterator&gt;</tt>
</td>
<td>
compile time
</td>
</tr>
</table>







<hr>
<h3><a name="2106"></a>2106. <tt>move_iterator</tt> wrapping iterators returning prvalues</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 24.5.3 [move.iterators] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Dave Abrahams <b>Opened:</b> 2011-11-30 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#move.iterators">issues</a> in [move.iterators].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Shouldn't <tt>move_iterator</tt> be specialized so that if the iterator it wraps
returns a prvalue when dereferenced, the <tt>move_iterator</tt> also returns by
value? Otherwise, it creates a dangling reference.
<p/>
Howard: I believe just changing <tt>move_iterator&lt;I&gt;::reference</tt> would do.
A direction might be testing on <tt>is_reference&lt;iterator_traits&lt;I&gt;::reference&gt;</tt>, 
or <tt>is_reference&lt;decltype(*declval&lt;I&gt;())&gt;</tt>.
<p/>
Daniel: I would prefer to use a consistent style among the iterator adaptors, so I
suggest to keep with the <tt>iterator_traits</tt> typedefs if possible. 
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
using reference = typename conditional&lt;
  is_reference&lt;typename iterator_traits&lt;Iterator&gt;::reference&gt;::value,
  value_type&amp;&amp;,
  value_type
&gt;::type;
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
We might also want to ensure that if <tt>Iterator</tt>'s <tt>reference</tt> type <em>is</em>
a reference, the referent is equal to <tt>value_type</tt> (after removal of <i>cv</i>-qualifiers). 
In <em>general</em> we have no such guarantee.
<p/>
Marc: In the default case where we don't return <tt>value_type&amp;&amp;</tt>, should we use 
<tt>value_type</tt> or should we keep the <tt>reference</tt> type of the wrapped iterator?
<p/>
Daniel: This suggestion looks appealing at first, but the problem here is that using this typedef
can make it impossible for <tt>move_iterator</tt> to satisfy its contract, which means returning
an rvalue of the value type (Currently it says rvalue-reference, but this must be fixed as of
this issue anyway). I think that user-code can reasonably expect that when it has constructed
an object <tt>m</tt> of <tt>move_iterator&lt;It&gt;</tt>, where <tt>It</tt> is a valid 
mutable iterator type, the expression
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<span style="color:#C80000;font-weight:bold">It::value_type&amp;&amp; rv = *m;</span>
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
is well-formed.
<p/>
Let's set <tt>R</tt> equal to <tt>iterator_traits&lt;Iterator&gt;::reference</tt>
in the following. We can discuss the following situations:
</p>
<ol><li><tt>R</tt> is a reference type: We can only return the corresponding xvalue of <tt>R</tt>,
if <tt>value_type</tt> is reference-related to the referent type, else this is presumably no
forward iterator and we cannot say much about it, except that it must be convertible to
<tt>value_type</tt>, so it better should return a prvalue.</li>
<li><tt>R</tt> is not a reference type: In this case we can rely on a conversion to
<tt>value_type</tt> again, but not much more. Assume we would return <tt>R</tt> directly,
this might turn out to have a conversion to an lvalue-reference type of the value type (for
example). If that is the case, this would indirectly violate the contract of 
<tt>move_iterator</tt>.</li>
</ol>
<p>
In regard to the first scenario I suggest that implementations are simply required to
check that <tt>V2 = remove_cv&lt;remove_reference&lt;R&gt;::type&gt;::type</tt> is equal
to the value type <tt>V1</tt> as a criterion to return this reference as an xvalue, in all other
cases it should return the value type directly as prvalue.
<p/>
The additional advantage of this strategy is, that we always ensure that <tt>reference</tt> has 
the correct <i>cv</i>-qualification, if <tt>R</tt> is a real reference.
<p/>
It is possible to improve this a bit by indeed supporting reference-related types,
this would require to test <tt>is_same&lt;V1, V2&gt;::value || is_base_of&lt;V1, V2&gt;::value</tt> 
instead. I'm unsure whether (a) this additional effort is worth it and (b) a strict reading of
the forward iterator requirements seems not to allow to return a reference-related type (Whether 
this is a defect or not is another question).
</p>

<p><i>[2011-12-05: Marc Glisse comments and splits into two resolution alternatives]</i></p>


<p>
I guess I am looking at the speed of:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
value_type x;
x = *m;
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
(copy construction would likely trigger copy elision and thus be neutral)

instead of the validity of:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
value_type&amp;&amp; x = *m;
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
In this sense, Daniels earlier proposition that ignored <tt>value_type</tt> and just did 
switch_lvalue_ref_to_rvalue_ref&lt;reference&gt; was easier to understand (and it didn't 
require thinking about reference related types).
<p/>
The currently proposed resolution has been split into two alternatives.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<p><strong>This section shows two mutually exclusive resolutions &mdash; only one can
be picked!</strong></p>

<ol style="list-style-type:upper-alpha">

<li>
<ol>
<li><p>Change 24.5.3 [move.iterators] p1 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><p>
Class template <tt>move_iterator</tt> is an iterator adaptor with the same behavior as the underlying iterator
except that its dereference operator implicitly converts the value returned by the underlying iterators
dereference operator to an rvalue <del>reference</del><ins>of the value type</ins>. Some generic algorithms 
can be called with move iterators to replace copying with moving.
</p></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 24.5.3.1 [move.iterator], class template <tt>move_iterator</tt> synopsis, as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template &lt;class Iterator&gt;
  class move_iterator {
  public:
    typedef Iterator iterator_type;
    typedef typename iterator_traits&lt;Iterator&gt;::difference_type difference_type;
    typedef Iterator pointer;
    typedef typename iterator_traits&lt;Iterator&gt;::value_type value_type;
    typedef typename iterator_traits&lt;Iterator&gt;::iterator_category iterator_category;
    typedef <del>value_type&amp;&amp;</del><ins><i>see below</i></ins> reference;
    [&hellip;]
  };
}
</pre></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Immediately following the class template <tt>move_iterator</tt> synopsis in 
24.5.3.1 [move.iterator] insert a new paragraph as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><p>
<ins>-?- Let <tt><i>R</i></tt> be <tt>iterator_traits&lt;Iterator&gt;::reference</tt> and
let <tt><i>V</i></tt> be <tt>iterator_traits&lt;Iterator&gt;::value_type</tt>. If 
<tt>is_reference&lt;<i>R</i>&gt;::value</tt> is <tt>true</tt> and if 
<tt>remove_cv&lt;remove_reference&lt;<i>R</i>&gt;::type&gt;::type</tt> is the same type as <tt><i>V</i></tt>, 
the template instantiation <tt>move_iterator&lt;Iterator&gt;</tt> shall define the nested type 
named <tt>reference</tt> as a synonym for <tt>remove_reference&lt;<i>R</i>&gt;::type&amp;&amp;</tt>, 
otherwise as a synonym for <tt><i>V</i></tt>.</ins>
</p></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>
</li>

<li>
<ol>
<li><p>Change 24.5.3 [move.iterators] p1 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><p>
Class template <tt>move_iterator</tt> is an iterator adaptor with the same behavior as the underlying iterator
except that its dereference operator implicitly converts the value returned by the underlying iterators
dereference operator to an rvalue <del>reference</del>. Some generic algorithms 
can be called with move iterators to replace copying with moving.
</p></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 24.5.3.1 [move.iterator], class template <tt>move_iterator</tt> synopsis, as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template &lt;class Iterator&gt;
  class move_iterator {
  public:
    typedef Iterator iterator_type;
    typedef typename iterator_traits&lt;Iterator&gt;::difference_type difference_type;
    typedef Iterator pointer;
    typedef typename iterator_traits&lt;Iterator&gt;::value_type value_type;
    typedef typename iterator_traits&lt;Iterator&gt;::iterator_category iterator_category;
    typedef <del>value_type&amp;&amp;</del><ins><i>see below</i></ins> reference;
    [&hellip;]
  };
}
</pre></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Immediately following the class template <tt>move_iterator</tt> synopsis in 
24.5.3.1 [move.iterator] insert a new paragraph as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><p>
<ins>-?- Let <tt><i>R</i></tt> be <tt>iterator_traits&lt;Iterator&gt;::reference</tt>. If 
<tt>is_reference&lt;<i>R</i>&gt;::value</tt> is <tt>true</tt>, the template instantiation 
<tt>move_iterator&lt;Iterator&gt;</tt> shall define the nested type named <tt>reference</tt> 
as a synonym for <tt>remove_reference&lt;<i>R</i>&gt;::type&amp;&amp;</tt>, 
otherwise as a synonym for <tt><i>R</i></tt>.</ins>
</p></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>

</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2107"></a>2107. Some iterator category should guarantee the lifetime of references</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 24.2 [iterator.requirements] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jeffrey Yasskin <b>Opened:</b> 2011-11-21 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#iterator.requirements">active issues</a> in [iterator.requirements].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#iterator.requirements">issues</a> in [iterator.requirements].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Many iterators guarantee that references and pointers returned from
their methods will outlive the iterator itself. Other useful iterators
can't guarantee this, leading to the rule in 24.2 [iterator.requirements] 
p9 that "Destruction of an iterator may invalidate pointers and references 
previously obtained from that iterator."
<p/>
Some algorithms can take advantage of long-lived references by
returning them, while they can adapt to short-lived references by
returning by value instead. However, there doesn't seem to be a way in
the standard to distinguish between these two types of iterators.
<p/>
The <tt>ForwardIterator</tt> requirements come close by saying "If <tt>a</tt> and <tt>b</tt> are
both dereferenceable, then <tt>a == b</tt> if and only if <tt>*a</tt> and <tt>*b</tt> are bound
to the same object." (24.2.5 [forward.iterators] p6) However, there are some
subtle ways to satisfy this rule and still return a short-lived reference, meaning 
algorithms can't be guaranteed that <tt>forward_iterator_tag</tt> will imply 
long-lived references.
<p/>
On the other hand, defect <a href="lwg-defects.html#198">198</a>, which added the invalidation wording
to iterator.requirements.general, refers to iterators with short-lived references 
being used as arguments to reverse_iterator, which requires <tt>BidirectionalIterator</tt>s. 
If <tt>ForwardIterator</tt> required long-lived references, this would be impossible.
<p/>
Either <tt>ForwardIterator</tt> should be clarified to require long-lived
references, or a new category should be added that does.
<p/>
See also the discussion around c++std-lib-31477.
<p/>
Daniel: Related to this issue is that when applying <a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3066.html">N3066</a>
we unintentionally lost some forward iterator requirements from C++03, where we 
had the post-conditions <tt>a == X(a)</tt> of <tt>X(a)</tt>, and <tt>u == a</tt> 
of any copy operation from <tt>a</tt> to <tt>u</tt>. This wording must be restored as well.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2108"></a>2108. No way to identify allocator types that always compare equal</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 17.6.3.5 [allocator.requirements] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2011-12-01 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#allocator.requirements">active issues</a> in [allocator.requirements].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#allocator.requirements">issues</a> in [allocator.requirements].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Whether two allocator objects compare equal affects the complexity of
container copy and move assignments and also the possibility of an
exception being thrown by container move assignments. The latter point
means container move assignment cannot be <tt>noexcept</tt> when
<tt>propagate_on_container_move_assignment</tt> (POCMA) is false for the
allocator because there is no way to detect at compile-time if two
allocators will compare equal. LWG <a href="lwg-active.html#2013">2013</a> means this affects all
containers using <tt>std::allocator</tt>, but even if that is resolved, this
affects all stateless allocators which do not explicitly define POCMA
to <tt>true_type</tt>.
<p/>
One solution would be to add an "always_compare_equal" trait to
<tt>allocator_traits</tt>, but that would be duplicating information that is
already defined by the type's equality operator if that operator
always returns true. Requiring users to write <tt>operator==</tt> that simply
returns true and also explicitly override a trait to repeat the same
information would be unfortunate and risk user errors that allow the
trait and actual <tt>operator==</tt> to disagree.
<p/>
Dave Abrahams suggested a better solution in message c++std-lib-31532,
namely to allow <tt>operator==</tt> to return <tt>true_type</tt>, which is convertible
to <tt>bool</tt> but also detectable at compile-time. Adopting this as the
recommended way to identify allocator types that always compare equal
only requires a slight relaxation of the allocator requirements so
that <tt>operator==</tt> is not required to return <tt>bool</tt> exactly.
<p/>
The allocator requirements do not make it clear that it is well-defined 
to compare non-const values, that should be corrected too.
<p/>
In message c++std-lib-31615 Pablo Halpern suggested an <tt>always_compare_equal</tt> 
trait that could still be defined, but with a sensible default value rather 
than requiring users to override it, and using that to set sensible values for 
other allocator traits:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
Do we still need <tt>always_compare_equal</tt> if we can have an <tt>operator==</tt>
that returns <tt>true_type</tt>?  What would its default value be? <tt>is_empty&lt;A&gt;
|| is_convertible&lt;decltype(a == a), true_type&gt;::value</tt>, perhaps?  One
benefit I see to such a definition is that stateless C++03 allocators
that don't use the <tt>true_type</tt> idiom will still benefit from the new
trait.
<p/>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
One point that I want to ensure doesn't get lost is that if we adopt some sort of 
<tt>always_compare_equal</tt>-like trait, then <tt>propagate_on_container_swap</tt> 
and <tt>propagate_on_container_move_assignment</tt> should default to 
<tt>always_compare_equal</tt>. Doing this will eliminate unnecessary requirements 
on the container element type, as per [LWG <a href="lwg-active.html#2103">2103</a>].
</p></blockquote>
<p>
Optionally, <tt>operator==</tt> for <tt>std::allocator</tt> could be made to return 
<tt>true_type</tt>, however if LWG <a href="lwg-active.html#2103">2103</a> is adopted that is less important.
<p/>
Alberto Ganesh Barbati: Suggest either <tt>always_compare_equal</tt>,
<tt>all_objects_(are_)equivalent</tt>, or <tt>all_objects_compare_equal</tt>.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change Table 27 &mdash; "Descriptive variable definitions" in 17.6.3.5 [allocator.requirements]:</p>

<table border="1">
<caption>Table 27 &mdash; Descriptive variable definitions</caption>
<tr>
<th>Variable</th>
<th>Definition</th>
</tr> 

<tr>
<td>
<tt>a3<ins>, a4</ins></tt>
</td>
<td>
<del>an rvalue of</del><ins>values of (possibly <tt>const</tt>)</ins> type <tt>X</tt>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>b</tt>
</td>
<td>
a value of <ins>(possibly <tt>const</tt>)</ins> type <tt>Y</tt>
</td>
</tr>

</table>

</li>

<li><p>Change Table 28 &mdash; "Allocator requirements" in 17.6.3.5 [allocator.requirements]:</p>

<table border="1">
<caption>Table 28 &mdash; Allocator requirements</caption>
<tr>
<th>Expression</th>
<th>Return type</th>
<th>Assertion&#47;note pre-&#47;post-condition</th>
<th>Default</th>
</tr> 

<tr>
<td>
<tt><del>a1 == a2</del><ins>a3 == a4</ins></tt>
</td>
<td>
<ins>convertible to</ins> <tt>bool</tt>
</td>
<td>
returns true only if storage<br/>
allocated from each can be<br/>
deallocated via the other.<br/>
<tt>operator==</tt> shall be reflexive,<br/>
symmetric, and transitive, and<br/>
shall not exit via an exception.
</td>
<td>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt><del>a1 != a2</del><ins>a3 != a4</ins></tt>
</td>
<td>
<ins>convertible to</ins> <tt>bool</tt>
</td>
<td>
same as <tt><del>!(a1 == a2)</del><ins>!(a3 == a4)</ins></tt>
</td>
<td>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>a<ins>3</ins> == b</tt>
</td>
<td>
<ins>convertible to</ins> <tt>bool</tt>
</td>
<td>
same as <tt>a<ins>3</ins> ==<br/>
Y::rebind&lt;T&gt;::other(b)</tt>
</td>
<td>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>a<ins>3</ins> != b</tt>
</td>
<td>
<ins>convertible to</ins> <tt>bool</tt>
</td>
<td>
same as <tt>!(a<ins>3</ins> == b)</tt>
</td>
<td>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">
<tt>[&hellip;]</tt>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>a.select_on_-<br/>
container_copy_-<br/>
construction()</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>X</tt>
</td>
<td>
Typically returns either <tt>a</tt> or<br/>
<tt>X()</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>return a;</tt>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<ins><tt>X::always_compares_equal</tt></ins>
</td>
<td>
<ins>Identical to or derived<br/>
from <tt>true_type</tt> or<br/>
<tt>false_type</tt></ins>
</td>
<td>
<ins><tt>true_type</tt> if the expression <tt>x1 == x2</tt> is<br/>
guaranteed to be <tt>true</tt> for any two (possibly<br/>
<tt>const</tt>) values <tt>x1, x2</tt> of type <tt>X</tt>, when<br/>
implicitly converted to <tt>bool</tt>. See Note B, below.</ins>
</td>
<td>
<ins><tt>true_type</tt>, if <tt>is_empty&lt;X&gt;::value</tt> is <tt>true</tt> or if<br/>
<tt>decltype(declval&lt;const X&amp;&gt;() == declval&lt;const X&amp;&gt;())</tt><br/> 
is convertible to <tt>true_type</tt>, otherwise <tt>false_type</tt>.</ins>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">
<tt>[&hellip;]</tt>
</td>
</tr>

</table>
<p>
Note A: [&hellip;]
<p/>
<ins>Note B: If <tt>X::always_compares_equal::value</tt> or <tt>XX::always_compares_equal::value</tt> evaluate 
to <tt>true</tt> and an expression equivalent to <tt>x1 == x2</tt> or <tt>x1 != x2</tt> for any two values 
<tt>x1, x2</tt> of type <tt>X</tt> evaluates to <tt>false</tt> or <tt>true</tt>, respectively, the behaviour 
is undefined.</ins>
</p>

</li>

<li><p>Change class template <tt>allocator_traits</tt> synopsis, 20.6.8 [allocator.traits] as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template &lt;class Alloc&gt; struct allocator_traits {
    typedef Alloc allocator_type;
    [&hellip;]
    <ins>typedef <i>see below</i> always_compares_equal;</ins>
    typedef <i>see below</i> propagate_on_container_copy_assignment;
    [&hellip;]
  };
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Insert the following between 20.6.8.1 [allocator.traits.types] p6 and p7 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
<ins>typedef <i>see below</i> always_compares_equal;</ins>
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
<ins>-?- <i>Type</i>: <tt>Alloc::always_compares_equal</tt> if such a type exists; otherwise, 
<tt>true_type</tt> if <tt>is_empty&lt;Alloc&gt;::value</tt> is <tt>true</tt> or if 
<tt>decltype(declval&lt;const Alloc&amp;&gt;() == declval&lt;const Alloc&amp;&gt;())</tt> 
is convertible to <tt>true_type</tt>; otherwise, <tt>false_type</tt>
.</ins>
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote><pre>
typedef <i>see below</i> propagate_on_container_copy_assignment;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-7- <i>Type</i>: <tt>Alloc::propagate_on_container_copy_assignment</tt> if such a type exits, 
otherwise <tt>false_type</tt>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change class template <tt>allocator</tt> synopsis, 20.6.9 [default.allocator] as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template &lt;class T&gt; class allocator;

  <i>// specialize for <tt>void</tt>:</i>
  template &lt;&gt; class allocator&lt;void&gt; {
  public:
    typedef void* pointer;
    typedef const void* const_pointer;
    <i>// reference-to-<tt>void</tt> members are impossible.</i>
    typedef void value_type;
    template &lt;class U&gt; struct rebind { typedef allocator&lt;U&gt; other; };
  };

  template &lt;class T&gt; class allocator {
  public:
    typedef size_t size_type;
    typedef ptrdiff_t difference_type;
    typedef T* pointer;
    typedef const T* const_pointer;
    typedef T&amp; reference;
    typedef const T&amp; const_reference;
    typedef T value_type;
    template &lt;class U&gt; struct rebind { typedef allocator&lt;U&gt; other; };
    <ins>typedef true_type always_compares_equal;</ins>

    [&hellip;]
  };
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2109"></a>2109. Incorrect requirements for <tt>hash</tt> specializations</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 19.5.5 [syserr.hash], 20.7.2.6 [util.smartptr.hash], 20.8.12 [unord.hash], 20.13.1 [type.index.synopsis], 21.6 [basic.string.hash], 23.3.7 [vector.bool], 30.3.1.1 [thread.thread.id] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-12-04 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
20.7.2.6 [util.smartptr.hash] p2 is specified as follows:
</p>

<blockquote><p>
<i>Requires</i>: the template specializations shall meet the requirements of class template 
<tt>hash</tt> (20.8.12).
</p></blockquote>

<p>
The problem here is the usage of a <i>Requires</i> element, which is actually a pre-condition
that a <em>user</em> of a component has to satisfy. But the intent of this wording is actually
to be a requirement on implementations. The <i>Requires</i> element should be removed here and
the wording should be improved to say what it was intended for.
<p/>
We have similar situations in basically all other places where the specification of library-provided
<tt>hash</tt> specializations is defined. Usually, the <i>Requires</i> element is incorrect. In the
special case of <tt>hash&lt;unique_ptr&lt;T, D&gt;&gt;</tt> the implementation depends on 
the behaviour of <tt>hash</tt> specializations, that could be user-provided. In this case
the specification needs to separate the requirements on these specializations and those
that are imposed on the implementation.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change 19.5.5 [syserr.hash] as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;&gt; struct hash&lt;error_code&gt;;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-1- <del><i>Requires</i>: the template specialization shall meet the requirements 
of class template <tt>hash</tt> (20.8.12 [unord.hash])</del><ins>The header 
<tt>&lt;system_error&gt;</tt> provides a definition for a specialization of the 
template <tt>hash&lt;error_code&gt;</tt>. The requirements for the members of 
this specialization are given in sub-clause 20.8.12 [unord.hash]</ins>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 20.5.3 [bitset.hash] as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;size_t N&gt; struct hash&lt;bitset&lt;N&gt; &gt;;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-1- <del><i>Requires</i>: the template specialization shall meet the requirements 
of class template <tt>hash</tt> (20.8.12 [unord.hash])</del><ins>The header 
<tt>&lt;bitset&gt;</tt> provides a definition for a partial specialization of the 
<tt>hash</tt> class template for specializations of class template <tt>bitset&lt;N&gt;</tt>. 
The requirements for the members of instantiations of this specialization are given 
in sub-clause 20.8.12 [unord.hash]</ins>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 20.7.2.6 [util.smartptr.hash] as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class T, class D&gt; struct hash&lt;unique_ptr&lt;T, D&gt; &gt;;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-1- <del><i>Requires</i>: the template specialization shall meet the requirements 
of class template <tt>hash</tt> (20.8.12 [unord.hash])</del><ins>The header 
<tt>&lt;memory&gt;</tt> provides a definition for a partial specialization of the 
<tt>hash</tt> class template for specializations of class template <tt>unique_ptr&lt;T, D&gt;</tt>. 
The requirements for the members of instantiations of this specialization are given 
in sub-clause 20.8.12 [unord.hash]</ins>. For an object <tt>p</tt> of type 
<tt>UP</tt>, where <tt>UP</tt> is <tt>unique_ptr&lt;T, D&gt;</tt>, 
<tt>hash&lt;UP&gt;()(p)</tt> shall evaluate to the same value as 
<tt>hash&lt;typename UP::pointer&gt;()(p.get())</tt>. <del>The specialization 
<tt>hash&lt;typename UP::pointer&gt;</tt> shall be well-formed.</del>
<p/>
<ins>-?- <i>Requires</i>: The specialization <tt>hash&lt;typename UP::pointer&gt;</tt> 
shall be well-formed and well-defined [<i>Note:</i> the general requirements 
of class template <tt>hash</tt> (20.8.12 [unord.hash]) are implied &mdash; 
<i>end note</i>].</ins>
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class T&gt; struct hash&lt;shared_ptr&lt;T&gt; &gt;;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-2- <del><i>Requires</i>: the template specialization shall meet the requirements 
of class template <tt>hash</tt> (20.8.12 [unord.hash])</del><ins>The header 
<tt>&lt;memory&gt;</tt> provides a definition for a partial specialization of the 
<tt>hash</tt> class template for specializations of class template <tt>shared_ptr&lt;T&gt;</tt>. 
The requirements for the members of instantiations of this specialization are given 
in sub-clause 20.8.12 [unord.hash]</ins>. For an object <tt>p</tt> of type 
<tt>shared_ptr&lt;T&gt;</tt>, <tt>hash&lt;shared_ptr&lt;T&gt; &gt;()(p)</tt> 
shall evaluate to the same value as <tt>hash&lt;T*&gt;()(p.get())</tt>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 20.8.12 [unord.hash] p2 as indicated: [<i>Comment</i>: For unknown
reasons the extended integer types are not mentioned here, which looks like an oversight to
me and makes also the wording more complicated. See <a href="lwg-active.html#2119">2119</a> for this part
of the problem. &mdash; <i>end comment</i>]</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;&gt; struct hash&lt;bool&gt;;
template &lt;&gt; struct hash&lt;char&gt;;
[&hellip;]
template &lt;&gt; struct hash&lt;long double&gt;;
template &lt;class T&gt; struct hash&lt;T*&gt;;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-2- <del><i>Requires</i>: the template specializations shall meet the requirements 
of class template <tt>hash</tt> (20.8.12 [unord.hash])</del><ins>The header 
<tt>&lt;functional&gt;</tt> provides definitions for specializations of the 
<tt>hash</tt> class template for each <i>cv</i>-unqualified arithmetic type except 
for the extended integer types. This header also provides a definition for a partial 
specialization of the <tt>hash</tt> class template for any pointer type. The 
requirements for the members of these specializations are given in sub-clause 
20.8.12 [unord.hash]</ins>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 20.13.4 [type.index.hash] p1 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;&gt; struct hash&lt;type_index&gt;;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-1- <del><i>Requires</i>: the template specialization shall meet the requirements 
of class template <tt>hash</tt> (20.8.12 [unord.hash])</del><ins>The header 
<tt>&lt;typeindex&gt;</tt> provides a definition for a specialization of the 
template <tt>hash&lt;type_index&gt;</tt>. The requirements for the members 
of this specialization are given in sub-clause 20.8.12 [unord.hash]</ins>. For 
an object <tt>index</tt> of type <tt>type_index</tt>, <tt>hash&lt;type_index&gt;()(index)</tt> 
shall evaluate to the same result as <tt>index.hash_code()</tt>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 21.6 [basic.string.hash] p1 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;&gt; struct hash&lt;string&gt;;
template &lt;&gt; struct hash&lt;u16string&gt;;
template &lt;&gt; struct hash&lt;u32string&gt;;
template &lt;&gt; struct hash&lt;wstring&gt;;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-1- <del><i>Requires</i>: the template specializations shall meet the requirements 
of class template <tt>hash</tt> (20.8.12 [unord.hash])</del><ins>The header 
<tt>&lt;string&gt;</tt> provides definitions for specializations of the 
<tt>hash</tt> class template for the types <tt>string</tt>, <tt>u16string</tt>,
<tt>u32string</tt>, and <tt>wstring</tt>. The requirements for the members 
of these specializations are given in sub-clause 20.8.12 [unord.hash]</ins>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 23.3.7 [vector.bool] p7 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class Allocator&gt; struct hash&lt;vector&lt;bool, Allocator&gt; &gt;;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-7- <del><i>Requires</i>: the template specialization shall meet the requirements 
of class template <tt>hash</tt> (20.8.12 [unord.hash])</del><ins>The header 
<tt>&lt;vector&gt;</tt> provides a definition for a partial specialization of the 
<tt>hash</tt> class template for specializations of class template <tt>vector&lt;bool, Allocator&gt;</tt>. 
The requirements for the members of instantiations of this specialization are given 
in sub-clause 20.8.12 [unord.hash]</ins>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 30.3.1.1 [thread.thread.id] p14 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;&gt; struct hash&lt;thread::id&gt;;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-14- <del><i>Requires</i>: the template specialization shall meet the requirements 
of class template <tt>hash</tt> (20.8.12 [unord.hash])</del><ins>The header 
<tt>&lt;thread&gt;</tt> provides a definition for a specialization of the 
template <tt>hash&lt;thread::id&gt;</tt>. The requirements for the members of this 
specialization are given in sub-clause 20.8.12 [unord.hash]</ins>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2110"></a>2110. <tt>remove</tt> can't swap but note says it might</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 25.3.8 [alg.remove] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Howard Hinnant <b>Opened:</b> 2011-12-07 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#alg.remove">issues</a> in [alg.remove].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
25.3.8 [alg.remove]&#47;p1 says:
</p>

<blockquote><p>
1 <i>Requires</i>: The type of <tt>*first</tt> shall satisfy the <tt>MoveAssignable</tt> requirements (Table 22).
</p></blockquote>

<p>
This means that <tt>remove</tt>&#47;<tt>remove_if</tt> can only use move assignment to permute the sequence. But then 
25.3.8 [alg.remove]&#47;p6 (non-normatively) contradicts p1:
</p>

<blockquote><p>
6 <i>Note</i>: each element in the range <tt>[ret,last)</tt>, where <tt>ret</tt> is the returned value, has a valid 
but unspecified state, because the algorithms can eliminate elements by swapping with or moving from elements that 
were originally in that range.
</p></blockquote>

<p>

</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<p>Change 25.3.8 [alg.remove] as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class ForwardIterator, class T&gt;
  ForwardIterator remove(ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last,
                         const T&amp; value);

template&lt;class ForwardIterator, class Predicate&gt;
  ForwardIterator remove_if(ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last,
                            Predicate pred);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-6-<i>Note</i>: each element in the range <tt>[ret,last)</tt>, where <tt>ret</tt> is the 
returned value, has a valid but unspecified state, because the algorithms can eliminate 
elements by <del>swapping with or</del> moving from elements that were originally in that range.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2111"></a>2111. Which <tt>unexpected</tt>&#47;<tt>terminate</tt> handler is called from the exception handling runtime?</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 18.8.3.4 [terminate], D.13.3 [unexpected] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Howard Hinnant <b>Opened:</b> 2011-12-06 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#terminate">issues</a> in [terminate].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Prior to N3242, modified by N3189, we said this about <tt>unexpected()</tt>:
</p>

<blockquote><p>
<i>Effects</i>: Calls the <tt>unexpected_handler</tt> function in effect immediately after evaluating the throw-expression 
(D.13.1), if called by the implementation, or calls the current <tt>unexpected_handler</tt>, if called by the program.
</p></blockquote>

<p>
and this about <tt>terminate()</tt>:
</p>

<blockquote><p>
<i>Effects</i>: Calls the <tt>terminate_handler</tt> function in effect immediately after evaluating the throw-expression (18.8.3.1), 
if called by the implementation, or calls the current <tt>terminate_handler</tt> function, if called by the program.
</p></blockquote>

<p>
But now in both places we say:
</p>

<blockquote><p>
Calls the current <tt>unexpected_handler</tt> function.
</p></blockquote>

<p>
and:
</p>

<blockquote><p>
Calls the current <tt>terminate</tt> function.
</p></blockquote>

<p>
The difference is that in C++98&#47;03 if a destructor reset a handler during stack unwinding, that new handler was 
not called if the unwinding later led to <tt>unexpected()</tt> or <tt>terminate()</tt> being called.  But these new 
words say that this new handler <em>is</em> called. This is an ABI-breaking change in the way exceptions are handled.  
Was this change intentional?
<p/>
N3189 was mainly about introducing exception safety and getters for the handlers. I don't recall the issue of 
<em>which</em> handler gets called being part of the discussion.
<p/>
I propose that we revert to the C++98&#47;03 behavior in this regard, lest ABI's such as the Itanium ABI are invalidated.  
A mechanical way to do this is to revert bullets 9 and 12 of N3189.
</p>

<p><i>[2011-12-09: Daniel comments]</i></p>


<p>
There was no such semantic change intended. It was an unfortunate side effect when trying to better separate different
responsibilities in the previous wording.
<p/>
A related issue is <a href="lwg-active.html#2088">2088</a>.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2112"></a>2112. User-defined classes that cannot be derived from</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 17.6.5 [conforming], 20.6.8 [allocator.traits], 20.12.1 [allocator.adaptor.syn] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-11-30 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#conforming">active issues</a> in [conforming].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#conforming">issues</a> in [conforming].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
It is a very established technique for implementations to derive internally from user-defined class types that are
used to customize some library component, e.g. deleters and allocators are typical candidates. The advantage of this
approach is to possibly take advantage of the empty-base-class optimization (EBCO).
<p/>
Whether or whether not libraries did take advantage of such a detail didn't much matter in C++03. Even though there
did exist a portable idiom to prevent that a class type could be derived from, this idiom has never reached great
popularity: The <a href="http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/More_C%2B%2B_Idioms/Final_Class">technique</a> required
to introduce a virtual base class and it did not really prevent the derivation, but only any construction of
such a type. Further, such types are not <em>empty</em> as defined by the <tt>std::is_empty</tt> trait, so
could easily be detected by implementations from TR1 on.
<p/>
With the new C++11 feature of final classes and final member functions it is now very easy to define an empty,
but not derivable from class type. From the point of the user it is quite natural to use this feature for
types that he or she did not foresee to be derivable from.
<p/>
On the other hand, most library implementations (including third-party libraries) often take advantage of EBCO 
applied to user-defined types used to instantiate library templates internally. As the time of submitting this 
issue the following program failed to compile on all tested library implementations:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;memory&gt;

struct Noop <span style="color:#C80000;font-weight:bold">final</span> {
 template&lt;class Ptr&gt;
 void operator()(Ptr) const {}
};

std::unique_ptr&lt;int, Noop&gt; up;
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
In addition, many <tt>std::tuple</tt> implementations with empty, final classes as element types failed as well, 
due to a popular inheritance-based implementation technique. EBCO has also a long tradition to be 
used in library containers to efficiently store potentially stateless, empty allocators.
<p/>
It seems that both user and library did the best they could: None of the affected types did impose explicit
requirements on the corresponding user-defined types to be derivable from (This capability was not part of
the required operations), and libraries did apply EBCO whereever possible to the convenience of the customer.
<p/>
Nonetheless given the existence of non-derivable-from class types in C++11, libraries have to cope with
failing derivations. How should that problem be solved?
<p/>
It would certainly be possible to add weazel wording to the allocator requirements similar to what we had
in C++03, but restricted to derivation-from requirements. I consider this as the bad solution, because it
would add new requirements that never had existed before in this explicit form onto types like allocators.
<p/>
Existing libraries presumably will need internal traits like <tt>__is_final</tt> or <tt>__is_derivable</tt>
to make EBCO possible in the current form but excluding non-derivable class types. As of this writing this
seems to happen already. Problem is that without a <tt>std::is_derivable</tt> trait, third-party libraries
have no portable means to do the same thing as standard library implementations. This should be a good 
reason to make such a trait public available soon, but seems not essential to have now. Further, this issue
should also be considered as a chance to recognice that EBCO has always been a very special corner case
(There exist parallels to the previously existing odd core language rule that did make the interplay 
between <tt>std::auto_ptr</tt> and <tt>std::auto_ptr_ref</tt> possible) and that it would be better to
provide explicit means for space-efficient storage, not necessarily restricted to inheritance relations, 
e.g. by marking data members with a special attribute.
<p/>
At least two descriptions in the current standard should be fixed now for better clarification:
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>As mentioned by Ganesh, 20.6.8 [allocator.traits] p1 currently contains a (non-normative) note
"Thus, it is always possible to create a derived class from an allocator." which should be removed.
</p>
</li>
<li><p>As pointed out by Howard, the specification of <tt>scoped_allocator_adaptor</tt> as of
20.12.1 [allocator.adaptor.syn] already requires derivation from <tt>OuterAlloc</tt>, but 
only implies indirectly the same for the inner allocators due to the <em>exposition-only</em> 
description of member <tt>inner</tt>. This indirect implication should be normatively required for 
all participating allocators.
</p></li>
</ol>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2113"></a>2113. Do library implementers have the freedom to add <tt>final</tt> to non-polymorphic components?</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 17.6.5 [conforming] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-11-30 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#conforming">active issues</a> in [conforming].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#conforming">issues</a> in [conforming].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Related to LWG <a href="lwg-active.html#2112">2112</a> the question has been raised whether a library implementation <em>may</em> declare
non-polymorphic library components, such as class template <tt>std::vector</tt> or <tt>std::basic_string</tt>,
as <tt>final</tt> class types.
<p/>
This issue is <em>not</em> suggesting to enforce that libraries are required to do that, it is asking
whether libraries should have the freedom to do so.
<p/>
The existing wording in 17.6.5.11 [derivation] does not give a clear permission to do so. In my opinion
this position should be clarified in either direction.
<p/>
Giving implementations this freedom would have both advantages and disadvantages. Several opponents where
worried about breakage of code of existing user implementations. On the other hand such types where not
designed to be used as base classes. Allowing implementations to mark these components as <tt>final</tt>
could allow them to provide compile-modes that are intentionally restrictive to the advantage of user code
that want to be alterted about that. Any implementation that would be concerned about user complaints would 
not take advantage of this feature anyway.
<p/>
If agreement exists that such implementation freedom would be useful, wording like
</p>
<blockquote><p>
An implementation may declare additional non-virtual member function signatures within a class as <tt>final</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
or
</p>
<blockquote><p>
An implementation may declare additional class without virtual member function signatures as <tt>final</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
should be added to 17.6.5 [conforming] with corresponding exceptions of these rules (e.g. <tt>iterator</tt>,
<tt>unary_function</tt>, or <tt>pair</tt>).
<p/>
If such freedom should not exist, it seems better to clarify this as well, e.g. by adding around 17.6.5.11 [derivation]:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
An implementation shall not declare any class or any member function signature as <tt>final</tt>.
</p></blockquote>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2114"></a>2114. Incorrect "<em>contextually</em> convertible to <tt>bool</tt>" requirements</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 17.6.3.3 [nullablepointer.requirements], 24.2.3 [input.iterators], 24.2.7 [random.access.iterators], 25.1 [algorithms.general], 25.4 [alg.sorting], 30.2.1 [thread.req.paramname] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-12-09 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
As of 17.6.3.1 [utility.arg.requirements] Table 17&#47;18, the return types of the expressions
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
a == b
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
or
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
a &lt; b
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
for types satisfying the <tt>EqualityComparable</tt> or <tt>LessThanComparable</tt>
types, respectively, are required to be "convertible to <tt>bool</tt>" which corresponds to
a copy-initialization context. But several newer parts of the library that refer to 
such contexts have lowered the requirements taking  advantage of the new terminology of 
"<em>contextually</em> convertible to <tt>bool</tt>" instead, which corresponds to a 
direct-initialization context (In addition to "normal" direct-initialization constructions, 
operands of logical operations as well as <tt>if</tt> or <tt>switch</tt> conditions also 
belong to this special context).
<p/>
One example for these new requirements are input iterators which satisfy <tt>EqualityComparable</tt> 
but also specify that the expression
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
a != b
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
shall be just "<strong>contextually</strong> convertible to <tt>bool</tt>". The same discrepancy 
exists for requirement set <tt>NullablePointer</tt> in regard to several equality-related expressions.
<p/>
For random access iterators we have
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<tt>a &lt; b</tt>      contextually convertible to <tt>bool</tt>
</p></blockquote>
<p>
as well as for all derived comparison functions, so strictly speaking we could have a random access 
iterator that does not satisfy the <tt>LessThanComparable</tt> requirements, which looks like an
artifact to me.
<p/>
Even if we keep with the existing requirements based on <tt>LessThanComparable</tt> or
<tt>EqualityComparable</tt> we still would have the problem that some current specifications 
are actually  based on the assumption of implicit convertibility instead of "explicit convertibility", e.g. 
20.7.1.4 [unique.ptr.special] p3:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class T1, class D1, class T2, class D2&gt;
bool operator!=(const unique_ptr&lt;T1, D1&gt;&amp; x, const unique_ptr&lt;T2, D2&gt;&amp; y);
</pre>
<blockquote>
<p>
-3- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>x.get() != y.get()</tt>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<p>
Similar examples exist in 20.7.1.2.2 [unique.ptr.single.dtor] p2, 20.7.1.2.3 [unique.ptr.single.asgn] p9,
20.7.1.2.4 [unique.ptr.single.observers] p1+3+8, etc.
<p/>
In all these places the expressions involving comparison functions (but <em>not</em> those of the conversion 
of a <tt>NullablePointer</tt> to <tt>bool</tt>!) assume to be "convertible to <tt>bool</tt>". I think this
is a very natural assumption and all delegations of the comparison functions of some type <tt>X</tt> to some
other API type <tt>Y</tt> in third-party code does so assuming that copy-initialization semantics will
just work.
<p/>
The actual reason for using the newer terminology can be rooted back to LWG <a href="lwg-defects.html#556">556</a>. My hypotheses 
is that the resolution of that issue also needs a slight correction. Why so?
<p/>
The reason for opening that issue were worries based on the previous "convertible to <tt>bool</tt>"
wording. An expressions like "<tt>!pred(a, b)</tt>" might not be well-formed in those situations, because
<tt>operator!</tt> might not be accessible or might have an unusual semantics (and similarly for other logical
operations). This can indeed happen with unusual proxy return types, so the idea was that the evaluation of 
<tt>Predicate</tt>, <tt>BinaryPredicate</tt> (25.1 [algorithms.general] p8+9), and <tt>Compare</tt> 
(25.4 [alg.sorting] p2) should be defined based on contextual conversion to <tt>bool</tt>. 
Unfortunately this <em>alone</em> is not sufficient: In addition, I think, we <em>also</em> want the predicates 
to be (implicitly) convertible to <tt>bool</tt>! Without this wording, several conditions are plain wrong, 
e.g. 25.2.5 [alg.find] p2, which talks about "<tt>pred(*i) != false</tt>" (<tt>find_if</tt>) and 
"<tt>pred(*i) == false</tt>" (<tt>find_if_not</tt>). These expressions are not within a boolean context! 
<p/>
While we could simply fix all these places by proper wording to be considered in a "contextual conversion to
<tt>bool</tt>", I think that this is not the correct solution: Many third-party libraries already refer to
the previous C++03 <tt>Predicate</tt> definition &mdash; it actually predates C++98 and is as old as the 
<a href="http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/Predicate.html">SGI specification</a>. It seems to be a high price to
pay to switch to direct initialization here instead of fixing a completely different specification problem.
<p/>
A final observation is that we have another definition for a <tt>Predicate</tt> in 30.2.1 [thread.req.paramname] p2:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
If a parameter is <tt>Predicate</tt>, <tt>operator()</tt> applied to the actual template argument shall return a value that
is convertible to <tt>bool</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
The problem here is not that we have two different definitions of <tt>Predicate</tt> in the standard &mdash; this 
is confusing, but this fact alone is not a defect. The first (minor) problem is that this definition does not properly 
apply to function objects that are function pointers, because <tt>operator()</tt> is not defined in a strict sense. 
But the actually worse second problem is that this wording has the very <tt>same</tt> problem that has originally lead to
LWG <a href="lwg-defects.html#556">556</a>! We only need to look at 30.5.1 [thread.condition.condvar] p15 to recognice this:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
while (!pred())
  wait(lock);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
The negation expression here looks very familiar to the example provided in LWG <a href="lwg-defects.html#556">556</a> and is sensitive
to the same "unusual proxy" problem. Changing the 30.2.1 [thread.req.paramname] wording to a corresponding
"contextual conversion to <tt>bool</tt>" wouldn't work either, because existing specifications rely on "convertible
to <tt>bool</tt>", e.g. 30.5.1 [thread.condition.condvar] p32+33+42 or 30.5.2 [thread.condition.condvarany] 
p25+26+32+33.
<p/>
To summarize: I believe that LWG <a href="lwg-defects.html#556">556</a> was not completely resolved. A pessimistic interpretation is,
that even with the current wording based on "contextually convertible to <tt>bool</tt>" the actual problem of that 
issue has <em>not</em> been fixed. What actually needs to be required here is some normative wording that basically
expresses something along the lines of:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
The semantics of <em>any</em> contextual conversion to <tt>bool</tt> shall be equivalent to the semantics of 
any implicit conversion to <tt>bool</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
This is still not complete without having concepts, but it seems to be a better approximation. Another way of solving
this issue would be to define a minimum requirements table with equivalent semantics. The proposed wording is a bit
simpler but attempts to express the same thing.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change Table 25 &mdash; "<tt>NullablePointer</tt> requirements" in 17.6.3.3 [nullablepointer.requirements]
as indicated:</p>

<table border="1">
<caption>Table 25 &mdash; <tt>NullablePointer</tt> requirements</caption>
<tr align="center">
<th>Expression</th>
<th>Return type</th>
<th>Operational semantics</th>
</tr> 

<tr>
<td colspan="3" align="center">
<tt>[&hellip;]</tt>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>a != b</tt>
</td>
<td>
<del>contextually</del> convertible to <tt>bool</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>!(a == b)</tt>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>a == np<br/>
np == a</tt>
</td>
<td>
<del>contextually</del> convertible to <tt>bool</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>a == P()</tt>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>a != np<br/>
np != a</tt>
</td>
<td>
<del>contextually</del> convertible to <tt>bool</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>!(a == np)</tt>
</td>
</tr>

</table>
 
</li>

<li><p>Change Table 107 &mdash; "Input iterator requirements" in 24.2.3 [input.iterators]
as indicated:</p>

<table border="1">
<caption>Table 107 &mdash; Input iterator requirements (in addition to Iterator)</caption>
<tr align="center">
<th>Expression</th>
<th>Return type</th>
<th>Operational semantics</th>
<th>Assertion&#47;note<br/>pre-&#47;post-condition</th>
</tr> 

<tr>
<td>
<tt>a != b</tt>
</td>
<td>
<del>contextually</del> convertible to <tt>bool</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>!(a == b)</tt>
</td>
<td>
pre: <tt>(a, b)</tt> is in the domain of <tt>==</tt>.
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">
<tt>[&hellip;]</tt>
</td>
</tr>

</table>
 
</li>

<li><p>Change Table 111 &mdash; "Random access iterator requirements" in 24.2.7 [random.access.iterators]
as indicated:</p>

<table border="1">
<caption>Table 111 &mdash; Random access iterator requirements (in addition to bidirectional iterator)</caption>
<tr align="center">
<th>Expression</th>
<th>Return type</th>
<th>Operational semantics</th>
<th>Assertion&#47;note<br/>pre-&#47;post-condition</th>
</tr> 

<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">
<tt>[&hellip;]</tt>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>a &lt; b</tt>
</td>
<td>
<del>contextually</del> convertible to <tt>bool</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>b - a &gt; 0</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>&lt;</tt> is a total ordering relation
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>a &gt; b</tt>
</td>
<td>
<del>contextually</del> convertible to <tt>bool</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>b &lt; a</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>&gt;</tt> is a total ordering relation opposite to <tt>&lt;</tt>.
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>a &gt;= b</tt>
</td>
<td>
<del>contextually</del> convertible to <tt>bool</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>!(a &lt; b)</tt>
</td>
<td>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>a &lt;= b</tt>
</td>
<td>
<del>contextually</del> convertible to <tt>bool</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>!(a &gt; b)</tt>
</td>
<td>
</td>
</tr>

</table>
 
</li>

<li><p>Change 25.1 [algorithms.general] p8+9 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>
-8- The <tt>Predicate</tt> parameter is used whenever an algorithm expects a function object 
(20.8 [function.objects]) that, when applied to the result of dereferencing the corresponding iterator, 
returns a value testable as <tt>true</tt>. In other words, if an algorithm takes <tt>Predicate pred</tt> 
as its argument and first as its iterator argument, it should work correctly in the construct 
<tt>pred(*first)</tt> <ins>implicitly or</ins> contextually converted to <tt>bool</tt> (Clause 4 [conv]). 
The function object <tt>pred</tt> shall not apply any non-constant function through the dereferenced iterator.
<p/>
-9- The <tt>BinaryPredicate</tt> parameter is used whenever an algorithm expects a function object that when applied
to the result of dereferencing two corresponding iterators or to dereferencing an iterator and type
<tt>T</tt> when <tt>T</tt> is part of the signature returns a value testable as <tt>true</tt>. In other words, if an algorithm takes
<tt>BinaryPredicate binary_pred</tt> as its argument and <tt>first1</tt> and <tt>first2</tt> as its iterator arguments, it should
work correctly in the construct <tt>binary_pred(*first1, *first2)</tt> <ins>implicitly or</ins> contextually converted to 
<tt>bool</tt> (Clause 4 [conv]).
<tt>BinaryPredicate</tt> always takes the first iterator's <tt>value_type</tt> as its first argument, that is, in those cases
when <tt>T</tt> value is part of the signature, it should work correctly in the construct <tt>binary_pred(*first1, value)</tt> 
<ins>implicitly or</ins> contextually converted to <tt>bool</tt> (Clause 4 [conv]). <tt>binary_pred</tt> shall 
not apply any non-constant function through the dereferenced iterators.
</p>
</blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 25.4 [alg.sorting] p2 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>
-2- <tt>Compare</tt> is a function object type (20.8 [function.objects]). The return value of the function 
call operation applied to an object of type <tt>Compare</tt>, when <ins>implicitly or</ins> contextually converted 
to <tt>bool</tt> (4 [conv]), yields <tt>true</tt> if the first argument of the call is less than the second, and 
<tt>false</tt> otherwise. <tt>Compare comp</tt> is used throughout for algorithms assuming an ordering relation. It is assumed 
that <tt>comp</tt> will not apply any non-constant function through the dereferenced iterator.
</p>
</blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 30.2.1 [thread.req.paramname] p2 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>
-2- <del>If a parameter is <tt>Predicate</tt>, operator() applied to the actual template argument shall return a value that
is convertible to <tt>bool</tt></del><ins><tt>Predicate</tt> is a function object type (20.8 [function.objects]).
The return value of the function call operation applied to an object of type <tt>Predicate</tt>, when implicitly or 
contextually converted to <tt>bool</tt> (4 [conv]), yields <tt>true</tt> if the corresponding test condition is
satisfied, and <tt>false</tt> otherwise</ins>.
</p>
</blockquote>
</li>

</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2115"></a>2115. Undefined behaviour for <tt>valarray</tt> assignments with <tt>mask_array</tt> index?</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 26.6.8 [template.mask.array] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Thomas Plum <b>Opened:</b> 2011-12-10 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Recently I received a Service Request (SR) alleging that one of our testcases causes an 
undefined behavior. The complaint is that 26.6.8 [template.mask.array] in C++11 
(and the corresponding subclause in C++03) are interpreted by some people to require that 
in an assignment "<tt>a[mask] = b</tt>", the subscript <tt>mask</tt> and the rhs <tt>b</tt> 
must have the same number of elements.
<p/>
IMHO, if that is the intended requirement, it should be stated explicitly.
<p/>
In any event, there is a tiny editorial cleanup that could be made:
<p/>
In C++11, 26.6.8.1 [template.mask.array.overview] para 2 mentions
</p>
<blockquote><p>
"the expression <tt>a[mask] = b;</tt>"
</p></blockquote>
<p>
but the semicolon cannot be part of an expression. The correction could omit the 
semicolon, or change the word "expression" to "assignment" or "statement".
<p/>
Here is the text of the SR, slightly modified for publication:
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
Subject:  SR01174 LVS _26322Y31 has undefined behavior [open]
<p/>
[Client:]<br/>
The test case t263.dir&#47;_26322Y31.cpp seems to be illegal as it has an undefined 
behaviour. I searched into the SRs but found SRs were not related to the topic 
explained in this mail (SR00324, SR00595, SR00838).
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
const char vl[] = {"abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"};
const char vu[] = {"ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ"};
const std::valarray&lt;char&gt; v0(vl, 27), vm5(vu, 5), vm6(vu, 6);
std::valarray&lt;char&gt; x = v0;
[&hellip;]
const bool vb[] = {false, false, true, true, false, true};
const std::valarray&lt;bool&gt; vmask(vb, 6);
x = v0;
x[vmask] = vm5;      // ***** HERE....
steq(&amp;x[0], "abABeCghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz");
x2 = x[vmask];       // ***** ....AND HERE
[&hellip;]
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
This problem has already been discussed between [experts]:
See thread <a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2009-11/threads.html#00051">http:&#47;&#47;gcc.gnu.org&#47;ml&#47;libstdc++&#47;2009-11&#47;threads.html#00051</a> 
Conclusion <a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2009-11/msg00099.html">http:&#47;&#47;gcc.gnu.org&#47;ml&#47;libstdc++&#47;2009-11&#47;msg00099.html</a>
<p/>
[Plum Hall:]<br/>
Before I log this as an SR, I need to check one detail with you.
<p/>
I did read the email thread you mentioned, and I did find a citation (see INCITS ISO&#47;IEC 14882-2003 
Section 26.3.2.6 on valarray computed assignments):
<p/>
Quote: "If the array and the argument array do not have the same length, the behavior is undefined",
<p/>
But this applies to computed assignment (<tt>*=</tt>, <tt>+=</tt>, etc), not to simple assignment. Here is the C++03 citation 
re simple assignment:
<p/>
26.3.2.2 valarray assignment [lib.valarray.assign]
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
valarray&lt;T&gt;&amp; operator=(const valarray&lt;T&gt;&amp;);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
1 Each element of the <tt>*this</tt> array is assigned the value of the corresponding element of the argument array.
The resulting behavior is undefined if the length of the argument array is not equal to the length of the
<tt>*this</tt> array.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<p>
In the new C++11 (N3291), we find ...
<p/>
26.6.2.3 valarray assignment [valarray.assign]
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
valarray&lt;T&gt;&amp; operator=(const valarray&lt;T&gt;&amp; v);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
1 Each element of the <tt>*this</tt> array is assigned the value of the corresponding element of the argument
array. If the length of <tt>v</tt> is not equal to the length of <tt>*this</tt>, resizes <tt>*this</tt> to make 
the two arrays the same length, as if by calling <tt>resize(v.size())</tt>, before performing the assignment.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<p>
So it looks like the testcase might be valid for C++11 but not for C++03; what do you think?
<p/>
[Client:]<br/>
I quite agree with you but the two problems I mentioned:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
x[vmask] = vm5;      // ***** HERE....
[&hellip;]
x2 = x[vmask];       // ***** ....AND HERE
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
refer to <tt>mask_array</tt> assignment hence target the C++03 26.3.8 paragraph. Correct?
<p/>
[Plum Hall:]<br/>
I mentioned the contrast between C++03 26.3.2.2 para 1 versus C++11 26.6.2.3 para 1.
<p/>
But in C++03 26.3.8, I don't find any corresponding restriction. Could you quote the specific 
requirement you're writing about?
<p/>
[Client:]<br/>
I do notice the difference between c++03 26.3.2.2 and c++11 26.6.2.3 about assignments between 
different sized <tt>valarray</tt> and I perfectly agree with you.
<p/>
But, as already stated, this is not a simple <tt>valarray</tt> assignment but a
<tt>mask_array</tt> assignment (c++03 26.3.8 &#47; c++11 26.6.8). See c++11 quote below:
<p/>
26.6.8 Class template mask_array<br/>
26.6.8.1 Class template mask_array overview<br/>
[....]
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>This template is a helper template used by the mask subscript operator:
<tt>mask_array&lt;T&gt; valarray&lt;T&gt;::operator[](const valarray&lt;bool&gt;&amp;)</tt>.
</p></li>
<li><p>It has reference semantics to a subset of an array specified by a boolean mask. Thus, 
the expression <tt>a[mask] = b;</tt> has the effect of assigning <em>the elements of <tt>b</tt></em> 
to the masked elements in <tt>a</tt> (those for which the corresponding element in <tt>mask</tt> is true.)
</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
26.6.8.2 mask_array assignment
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
void operator=(const valarray&lt;T&gt;&amp;) const;
const mask_array&amp; operator=(const mask_array&amp;) const;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
1 These assignment operators have reference semantics, assigning the values of the argument array 
elements to selected elements of the <tt>valarray&lt;T&gt;</tt> object to which it refers.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<p>
In particular, [one of the WG21 experts] insisted on the piece "the elements of <tt>b</tt>".
<p/>
That is why I reported the test t263.dir&#47;_26322Y31.cpp having an undefined behaviour.
<p/>
[Plum Hall:]<br/>
OK, I can see that I will have to ask WG21; I will file an appropriate issue 
with the Library subgroup. In the meantime, I will mark this testcase as "DISPUTED" 
so that it is not required for conformance testing, until we get a definitive opinion.
</p>
</blockquote>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2116"></a>2116. <tt>std::swap noexcept(what?)</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.9.4.3 [meta.unary.prop] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Dave Abrahams <b>Opened:</b> 2011-12-09 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#meta.unary.prop">active issues</a> in [meta.unary.prop].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#meta.unary.prop">issues</a> in [meta.unary.prop].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
IMO if we specified <tt>is_[nothrow_]constructible</tt> in terms of a variable
declaration whose validity requires destructibility, it is clearly a bug
in our specification and a failure to realize the actual original
intent. The specification should have been in terms of placement-new.
<p/>
Daniel:<br/>
At the time of the specification this was intended and the solution is
<em>not</em> done by removing the destruction semantics of <tt>is_constructible</tt>.
<p/>
The design of <tt>is_constructible</tt> was also impacted by the previous
<tt>Constructible</tt> concept that <em>explicitly</em> contained destruction semantics,
because during conceptification of the library it turned out to simplify
the constraints  in the library because you did not need to add
<tt>Destructible</tt> all the time. It often was implied but never spoken out
in C++03.
<p/>
Pure construction semantics was considered as useful as well, so <tt>HasConstructor</tt> 
did also exist and would surely be useful as trait as well.
<p/>
Another example that is often overlooked: This also affects wrapper types like <tt>pair</tt>, 
<tt>tuple</tt>, <tt>array</tt> that contain potentially more than one type:
This is easy to understand if you think of <tt>T1</tt> having a deleted destructor
and <tt>T2</tt> having a constructor that may throw: Obviously the compiler has
potentially need to use the <tt>destructor</tt> of <tt>T1</tt> in the <em>constructor</em>
of <tt>std::pair&lt;T1, T2&gt;</tt> to ensure that the core language requirements
are satisfied (All previous fully constructed sub-objects must be destructed).
<p/>
The core language also honors this fact in 12.8 [class.copy] p11:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
A defaulted copy&#47;move constructor for a class <tt>X</tt> is defined as deleted (8.4.3 [dcl.fct.def.delete]) 
if <tt>X</tt> has:<br/>
[&hellip;]<br/>
&mdash; any direct or virtual base class or non-static data member of a type with a destructor that is deleted
or inaccessible from the defaulted constructor,<br/>
[&hellip;]
</p></blockquote>
<p>
Dave:<br/>
This is about <tt>is_nothrow_constructible</tt> in particular. The fact that it is 
foiled by not having a <tt>noexcept</tt> dtor is a defect.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2117"></a>2117. <tt>ios_base</tt> manipulators should have <tt>showgrouping&#47;noshowgrouping</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 22.4.2.2.2 [facet.num.put.virtuals], 27.5.3.1.2 [ios::fmtflags], 27.5.6.1 [fmtflags.manip] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Benjamin Kosnik <b>Opened:</b> 2011-12-15 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#facet.num.put.virtuals">issues</a> in [facet.num.put.virtuals].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Iostreams should include a manipulator to toggle grouping on&#47;off for
locales that support grouped digits. This has come up repeatedly and
been deferred. See LWG <a href="lwg-closed.html#826">826</a> for the previous attempt.
<p/>
If one is using a locale that supports grouped digits, then output
will always include the generated grouping characters. However, very
plausible scenarios exist where one might want to output the number,
un-grouped. This is similar to existing manipulators that toggle
on&#47;off the decimal point, numeric base, or positive sign.
<p/>
See some user commentary <a href="http://www.tablix.org/~avian/blog/archives/2008/01/c_streams_suck/">here</a>.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ol>
<li>
<p>Insert in 22.4.2.2.2 [facet.num.put.virtuals] paragraph 5:</p>

<blockquote><p>
<strong>Stage 1</strong>: The first action of stage 1 is to determine a conversion specifier. The tables that describe
this determination use the following local variables
</p>
<pre>
fmtflags flags = str.flags() ;
fmtflags basefield = (flags &amp; (ios_base::basefield));
fmtflags uppercase = (flags &amp; (ios_base::uppercase));
fmtflags floatfield = (flags &amp; (ios_base::floatfield));
fmtflags showpos = (flags &amp; (ios_base::showpos));
fmtflags showbase = (flags &amp; (ios_base::showbase));
<ins>fmtflags showgrouping = (flags &amp; (ios_base::showgrouping));</ins>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change header <tt>&lt;ios&gt;</tt> synopsis, 27.5.1 [iostreams.base.overview] as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;iosfwd&gt;

namespace std {
  [&hellip;]
  <i>// 27.5.6, manipulators:</i>
  [&hellip;]
  ios_base&amp; showpoint     (ios_base&amp; str);
  ios_base&amp; noshowpoint   (ios_base&amp; str);
  <ins>ios_base&amp; showgrouping  (ios_base&amp; str);</ins>
  <ins>ios_base&amp; noshowgrouping(ios_base&amp; str);</ins>
  ios_base&amp; showpos       (ios_base&amp; str);
  ios_base&amp; noshowpos     (ios_base&amp; str);
  [&hellip;]
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change class <tt>ios_base</tt> synopsis, 27.5.3 [ios.base] as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  class ios_base {
  public:
  class failure;
    <i>// 27.5.3.1.2 fmtflags</i>
    typedef <i>T1</i> fmtflags;
    [&hellip;]
    static constexpr fmtflags showpoint = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    <ins>static constexpr fmtflags showgrouping = <i>unspecified</i> ;</ins>
    static constexpr fmtflags showpos = <i>unspecified</i> ;
    [&hellip;]
  };
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Add a new entry to Table 122 &mdash; "<tt>fmtflags</tt> effects" as indicated:</p>

<table border="1">
<caption>Table 122 &mdash; <tt>fmtflags</tt> effects</caption>
<tr align="center">
<th>Element</th>
<th>Effect(s) if set</th>
</tr> 

<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center">
<tt>[&hellip;]</tt>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>showpoint</tt>
</td>
<td>
generates a decimal-point character unconditionally in generated floatingpoint output
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<ins><tt>showgrouping</tt></ins>
</td>
<td>
<ins>generates grouping characters unconditionally in generated output</ins>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center">
<tt>[&hellip;]</tt>
</td>
</tr>

</table>
 
</li>

<li><p>After 27.5.3.1.2 [ios::fmtflags] p12 insert the following:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>ios_base&amp; showgrouping(ios_base&amp; str);</ins>
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
<ins>-?- <i>Effects</i>: Calls <tt>str.setf(ios_base::showgrouping)</tt>.</ins>
<p/>
<ins>-?- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>str</tt>.</ins>
</p>
</blockquote>
<pre>
<ins>ios_base&amp; noshowgrouping(ios_base&amp; str);</ins>
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
<ins>-?- <i>Effects</i>: Calls <tt>str.unsetf(ios_base::showgrouping)</tt>.</ins>
<p/>
<ins>-?- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>str</tt>.</ins>
</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</li>

</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2118"></a>2118. <tt>unique_ptr</tt> for array does not support <i>cv</i> qualification conversion of actual argument</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.7.1.3 [unique.ptr.runtime] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Alf P. Steinbach <b>Opened:</b> 2011-12-16 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#unique.ptr.runtime">issues</a> in [unique.ptr.runtime].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
N3290 20.7.1.3.1 [unique.ptr.runtime.ctor] "<tt>unique_ptr</tt> constructors":
</p>
<blockquote><p>
These constructors behave the same as in the primary template except that they do not accept pointer types 
which are convertible to <tt>pointer</tt>. [<i>Note:</i> One implementation technique is to create private 
templated overloads of these members. &mdash; <i>end note</i>]
</p></blockquote>
<p>
This language excludes even <tt>pointer</tt> itself as type for the actual argument.
<p/>
But of more practical concern is that both Visual C++ 10.0 and MinGW g++ 4.1.1 reject the code below, where 
only an implicit <i>cv</i> qualification is needed, which <i>cv</i> qualification is supported by the non-array 
version:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;memory&gt;
using namespace std;

struct T {};

T* foo() { return new T; }
T const* bar() { return foo(); }

int main()
{
   unique_ptr&lt; T const &gt;       p1( bar() );        // OK
   unique_ptr&lt; T const [] &gt;    a1( bar() );        // OK

   unique_ptr&lt; T const &gt;       p2( foo() );        // OK
   unique_ptr&lt; T const [] &gt;    a2( foo() );        // <span style="color:#C80000;font-weight:bold">? this is line #15</span>
}
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
The <em>intent</em> seems to be clearly specified in 20.7.1.3 [unique.ptr.runtime]&#47;1 second bullet:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
&mdash; Pointers to types derived from <tt>T</tt> are rejected by the constructors, and by <tt>reset</tt>.
</p></blockquote>

<p>
But the following language in 20.7.1.3.1 [unique.ptr.runtime.ctor] then rejects far too much...
<p/>
Proposed new wording of N3290 20.7.1.3.1 [unique.ptr.runtime.ctor] "<tt>unique_ptr</tt> constructors":
</p>
<blockquote><p>
These constructors behave the same as in the primary template except that actual argument pointers <tt>p</tt> 
to types derived from <tt>T</tt> are rejected by the constructors. [<i>Note:</i> One implementation technique 
is to create private templated overloads of these members. &mdash; <i>end note</i>]
</p></blockquote>
<p>
This will possibly capture the intent better, and avoid the inconsistency between the non-array and array 
versions of <tt>unique_ptr</tt>, by using nearly the exact same phrasing as for the paragraph explaining 
the intent.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<p>Change 20.7.1.3.1 [unique.ptr.runtime.ctor] as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
explicit unique_ptr(pointer p) noexcept;
unique_ptr(pointer p, <i>see below</i> d) noexcept;
unique_ptr(pointer p, <i>see below</i> d) noexcept;
</pre>
<blockquote><p>
These constructors behave the same as in the primary template except that <del>they do not accept pointer
types which are convertible to <tt>pointer</tt></del><ins>argument pointers <tt>p</tt> to types derived 
from <tt>T</tt> are rejected by the constructors</ins>. [<i>Note:</i> One implementation technique is to 
create private templated overloads of these members. &mdash; <i>end note</i>]
</p></blockquote></blockquote>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2119"></a>2119. Missing <tt>hash</tt> specializations for extended integer types</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.8.12 [unord.hash] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-12-16 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#unord.hash">issues</a> in [unord.hash].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
According to the header <tt>&lt;functional&gt;</tt> synopsis 20.8 [function.objects] 
and to the explicit description in 20.8.12 [unord.hash] class template 
<tt>hash</tt> specializations shall be provided for all arithmetic types that are 
not extended integer types. This is not explicitly mentioned, but neither the list 
nor any normative wording does include them, so it follows by implication.
<p/>
What are the reasons that extended integer types are excluded? E.g. for 
<tt>numeric_limits</tt> corresponding specializations are required. I would 
expect that an <tt>unordered_map</tt> with key type <tt>std::uintmax_t</tt> would 
just work, but that depends now on whether this type is an extended integer type 
or not.
<p/>
This issue is <em>not</em> asking for also providing specializations for the
<i>cv</i>-qualified arithmetic types. While this is surely a nice-to-have feature,
I consider that restriction as a more secondary problem in practice.
<p/>
The proposed resolution also fixes a problem mentioned in <a href="lwg-active.html#2109">2109</a> in regard
to confusing requirements on user-defined types and those on implementations.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<p>Change 20.8.12 [unord.hash] p2 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;&gt; struct hash&lt;bool&gt;;
template &lt;&gt; struct hash&lt;char&gt;;
[&hellip;]
template &lt;&gt; struct hash&lt;long double&gt;;
template &lt;class T&gt; struct hash&lt;T*&gt;;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-2- <del><i>Requires</i>: the template specializations shall meet the requirements 
of class template <tt>hash</tt> (20.8.12 [unord.hash])</del><ins>The header 
<tt>&lt;functional&gt;</tt> provides definitions for specializations of the 
<tt>hash</tt> class template for each <i>cv</i>-unqualified arithmetic type. This 
header also provides a definition for a partial specialization of the <tt>hash</tt> 
class template for any pointer type. The requirements for the members of these 
specializations are given in sub-clause 20.8.12 [unord.hash]</ins>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2120"></a>2120. What should <tt>async</tt> do if neither '<tt>async</tt>' nor '<tt>deferred</tt>' is set in policy?</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.6.8 [futures.async] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2012-01-01 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-14</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#futures.async">active issues</a> in [futures.async].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#futures.async">issues</a> in [futures.async].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Implementations already disagree, one returns an invalid future with
no shared state, one chooses <tt>policy == async</tt> and one chooses <tt>policy ==
deferred</tt>, see c++std-lib-30839, c++std-lib-30840 and c++std-lib-30844.
It's not clear if returning an invalid future is allowed by the current wording.
<p/>
If the intention is to allow an empty future to be returned, then
30.6.8 [futures.async] p3 and p4 should be adjusted to clarify that a
shared state might not be created and an invalid future might be returned.
<p/>
If the intention is that a valid future is always returned, p3 should
say something about the case where none of the conditions applies.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2121"></a>2121. <tt>app</tt> for string streams</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 27.8.6 [stringstream.cons] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Nicolai Josuttis <b>Opened:</b> 2012-01-15 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-16</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
This issue was raised while discussing issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#1448">1448</a>.
<p/>
Note the following program:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
string s("s1: 123456789");
ostringstream s1(s, ios_base::out|ios_base::app);
s1 &lt;&lt; "hello";
cout &lt;&lt; s1.str() &lt;&lt; endl;
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
With g++4.x it prints:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
s1: 123456789hello
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
With VisualC++10 it prints:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
hello23456789
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
From my intuitive understanding the flag "app" should result in the output of g++4.x.
I also would read that from 27.5.3.1.4 [ios::openmode] claiming:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<tt>app</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;seek to end before each write
</p></blockquote>
<p>
However in issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#1448">1448</a> P.J.Plauger comments:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
I think we should say nothing special about <tt>app</tt> at construction time (thus leaving the write pointer at the beginning of the buffer).
Leave implementers wiggle room to ensure subsequent append writes as they see fit, but don't change existing rules for initial seek
position.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
Note that the flag <tt>ate</tt> on both platforms appends "hello" to <tt>s</tt>.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2122"></a>2122. <tt>merge()</tt> stability for lists versus forward lists</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.3.5.5 [list.ops], 23.3.4.6 [forwardlist.ops] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Nicolai Josuttis <b>Opened:</b> 2012-01-15 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-16</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#list.ops">issues</a> in [list.ops].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
<tt>forward_list::merge()</tt> is specified in  23.3.4.6 [forwardlist.ops], p19 as follows:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
This operation shall be stable: for equivalent elements in the two lists,
the elements from <tt>*this</tt> shall always precede the elements from <tt>x</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
But <tt>list::merge()</tt> is only specified in 23.3.5.5 [list.ops], p24 as follows:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Remarks</i>: Stable.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
Note that in general we define "stable" only for algorithms (see  [defns.stable] and 
17.6.5.7 [algorithm.stable]) so for member function we should explain it everywhere we use it.
<p/>
Thus for lists we have to add:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
Stable: for equivalent elements in the two lists, the elements from the list always precede the elements
from the argument list.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
This, BTW, was the specification we had with C++03.
<p/>
In addition, I wonder whether we also have some guarantees regarding stability saying that the order 
of equivalent elements of each list merged remains stable (which would be my interpretation of just 
saying "stable", BTW).
<p/>
Thus, I'd expect that for equivalent elements we guarantee that
</p>
<ul>
 <li> we first have all element of <tt>*this</tt> (in the same order as on entry)</li>
 <li> and then all elements of the passed argument (in the same order as on entry).</li>
</ul>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ol>
<li>
<p>Change 23.3.5.5 [list.ops] as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
void                          merge(list&lt;T,Allocator&gt;&amp; x);
void                          merge(list&lt;T,Allocator&gt;&amp;&amp; x);
template &lt;class Compare&gt; void merge(list&lt;T,Allocator&gt;&amp; x, Compare comp);
template &lt;class Compare&gt; void merge(list&lt;T,Allocator&gt;&amp;&amp; x, Compare comp);</pre>
<blockquote><p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-24- <i>Remarks</i>: <del>Stable</del><ins>This operation shall be stable: for equivalent elements 
in the two lists, the elements from <tt>*this</tt> shall always precede the elements from <tt>x</tt>
and the order of equivalent elements of <tt>*this</tt> and <tt>x</tt> remains stable</ins>. If 
<tt>(&amp;x != this)</tt> the range <tt>[x.begin(), x.end())</tt> 
is empty after the merge. No elements are copied by this operation. The behavior is undefined if 
<tt>this-&gt;get_allocator() != x.get_allocator()</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li>
<p>Change 23.3.4.6 [forwardlist.ops] as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
void merge(forward_list&lt;T,Allocator&gt;&amp; x);
void merge(forward_list&lt;T,Allocator&gt;&amp;&amp; x);
template &lt;class Compare&gt; void merge(forward_list&lt;T,Allocator&gt;&amp; x, Compare comp);
template &lt;class Compare&gt; void merge(forward_list&lt;T,Allocator&gt;&amp;&amp; x, Compare comp);</pre>
<blockquote><p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-19- <i>Effects</i>: Merges <tt>x</tt> into <tt>*this</tt>. This operation shall be stable: for 
equivalent elements in the two lists, the elements from <tt>*this</tt> shall always precede the 
elements from <tt>x</tt> <ins>and the order of equivalent elements of <tt>*this</tt> and <tt>x</tt> 
remains stable</ins>. <tt>x</tt> is empty after the merge. If an exception is thrown other 
than by a comparison there are no effects. Pointers and references to the moved elements of <tt>x</tt> 
now refer to those same elements but as members of <tt>*this</tt>. Iterators referring
to the moved elements will continue to refer to their elements, but they now behave as iterators into
<tt>*this</tt>, not into <tt>x</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2123"></a>2123. <tt>merge()</tt> allocator requirements for lists versus forward lists</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.3.4.6 [forwardlist.ops] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Nicolai Josuttis <b>Opened:</b> 2012-01-15 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-01-16</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#forwardlist.ops">active issues</a> in [forwardlist.ops].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#forwardlist.ops">issues</a> in [forwardlist.ops].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Sub-clause 23.3.5.5 [list.ops], p24 states for lists:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
The behavior is undefined if <tt>this-&gt;get_allocator() != x.get_allocator()</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
But there is nothing like that for forward lists in 23.3.4.6 [forwardlist.ops],
although I would expect the same undefined behavior there.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<ol>
<li>
<p>Add a new paragraph after 23.3.4.6 [forwardlist.ops] p19 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
void merge(forward_list&lt;T,Allocator&gt;&amp; x);
void merge(forward_list&lt;T,Allocator&gt;&amp;&amp; x);
template &lt;class Compare&gt; void merge(forward_list&lt;T,Allocator&gt;&amp; x, Compare comp);
template &lt;class Compare&gt; void merge(forward_list&lt;T,Allocator&gt;&amp;&amp; x, Compare comp);</pre>
<blockquote><p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-19- <i>Effects</i>: [&hellip;]
<p/>
<ins>-?- <i>Remarks</i>: The behavior is undefined if <tt>this-&gt;get_allocator() != x.get_allocator()</tt>.</ins>
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>






</body>
</html>
