<!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">N3687</td>
</tr>
<tr>
  <td align="left">Date:</td>
  <td align="left">2013-05-06</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 R83)</h1>
<p>Revised 2013-05-06 at 15:05:52 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>R83: 2013-05 post-Bristol mailing<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>137 open issues, down by 37.</li>
<li>1637 closed issues, up by 40.</li>
<li>1774 issues total, up by 3.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following 3 New issues: <a href="lwg-active.html#2249">2249</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2250">2250</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2251">2251</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 2 issues to Ready (from Review): <a href="lwg-active.html#2141">2141</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2235">2235</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 2 issues to Ready (from New): <a href="lwg-active.html#2246">2246</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2247">2247</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 3 issues to Open (from Review): <a href="lwg-active.html#2219">2219</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2223">2223</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2227">2227</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 8 issues to WP (from Ready): <a href="lwg-defects.html#2091">2091</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2092">2092</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2093">2093</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2145">2145</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2147">2147</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2163">2163</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2169">2169</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2172">2172</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 14 issues to WP (from Tentatively Ready): <a href="lwg-defects.html#2080">2080</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2109">2109</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2144">2144</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2174">2174</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2175">2175</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2177">2177</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2187">2187</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2197">2197</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2200">2200</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2209">2209</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2211">2211</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2222">2222</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2225">2225</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2231">2231</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 14 issues to WP (from Review): <a href="lwg-defects.html#2094">2094</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2098">2098</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2130">2130</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2138">2138</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2140">2140</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2162">2162</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2176">2176</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2185">2185</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2190">2190</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2196">2196</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2203">2203</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2207">2207</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2210">2210</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2229">2229</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 4 issues to WP (from Open): <a href="lwg-defects.html#2122">2122</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2128">2128</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2148">2148</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2149">2149</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R82: 
2013-03 pre-Bristol mailing
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>174 open issues, up by 13.</li>
<li>1597 closed issues, up by 1.</li>
<li>1771 issues total, up by 14.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following Review issue: <a href="lwg-active.html#2235">2235</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following 13 New issues: <a href="lwg-active.html#2236">2236</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2237">2237</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2238">2238</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2239">2239</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2240">2240</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2241">2241</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2242">2242</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2243">2243</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2244">2244</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2245">2245</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2246">2246</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2247">2247</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2248">2248</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 10 issues to Tentatively Ready (from New): <a href="lwg-active.html#2144">2144</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2174">2174</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2175">2175</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2197">2197</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2200">2200</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2209">2209</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2211">2211</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2222">2222</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2225">2225</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2231">2231</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 11 issues to Review (from New): <a href="lwg-active.html#2141">2141</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2176">2176</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2182">2182</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2203">2203</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2207">2207</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2210">2210</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2219">2219</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2223">2223</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2227">2227</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2228">2228</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2229">2229</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 19 issues to Open (from New): <a href="lwg-active.html#2133">2133</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2146">2146</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2151">2151</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2153">2153</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2155">2155</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2156">2156</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2160">2160</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2179">2179</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2189">2189</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2198">2198</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2199">2199</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2206">2206</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2212">2212</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2215">2215</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2218">2218</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2224">2224</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2232">2232</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2233">2233</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2234">2234</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue to NAD Future (from New): <a href="lwg-closed.html#2226">2226</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R81: 
2013-01 mid-term mailing
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>161 open issues, up by 21.</li>
<li>1596 closed issues, up by 3.</li>
<li>1757 issues total, up by 24.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following 24 New issues: <a href="lwg-active.html#2211">2211</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2212">2212</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2213">2213</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2214">2214</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2215">2215</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2216">2216</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2217">2217</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2218">2218</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2219">2219</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2220">2220</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2221">2221</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2222">2222</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2223">2223</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2224">2224</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2225">2225</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2226">2226</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2227">2227</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2228">2228</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2229">2229</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2230">2230</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2231">2231</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2232">2232</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2233">2233</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2234">2234</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue to Open (from Tentatively Ready): <a href="lwg-active.html#2106">2106</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 3 issues to Resolved (from Open): <a href="lwg-defects.html#2012">2012</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2054">2054</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2057">2057</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R80: 
2012-11-02 post-Portland mailing
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>140 open issues, up by 4.</li>
<li>1593 closed issues, up by 17.</li>
<li>1733 issues total, up by 21.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following 2 Review issues: <a href="lwg-active.html#2190">2190</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2196">2196</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following 18 New issues: <a href="lwg-active.html#2191">2191</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2192">2192</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2194">2194</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2195">2195</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2197">2197</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2198">2198</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2199">2199</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2200">2200</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2201">2201</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2202">2202</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2203">2203</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2204">2204</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2205">2205</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2206">2206</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2207">2207</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2208">2208</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2209">2209</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2210">2210</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following EWG issue: <a href="lwg-active.html#2193">2193</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 3 issues to Ready (from Review): <a href="lwg-active.html#2091">2091</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2092">2092</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2093">2093</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 5 issues to Ready (from New): <a href="lwg-active.html#2145">2145</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2147">2147</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2163">2163</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2169">2169</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2172">2172</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 3 issues to Tentatively Ready (from Review): <a href="lwg-active.html#2080">2080</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2106">2106</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2109">2109</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 2 issues to Tentatively Ready (from New): <a href="lwg-active.html#2177">2177</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2187">2187</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 4 issues to Tentatively NAD Editorial (from New): <a href="lwg-active.html#2078">2078</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2125">2125</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2126">2126</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2134">2134</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue to Tentatively NAD (from New): <a href="lwg-active.html#2167">2167</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 9 issues to Review (from New): <a href="lwg-active.html#2098">2098</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2100">2100</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2120">2120</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2130">2130</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2132">2132</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2138">2138</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2140">2140</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2162">2162</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2185">2185</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue to Open (from Review): <a href="lwg-active.html#1175">1175</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 12 issues to Open (from New): <a href="lwg-active.html#2075">2075</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2135">2135</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2136">2136</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2137">2137</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2142">2142</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2148">2148</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2149">2149</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2152">2152</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2157">2157</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2159">2159</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2178">2178</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2186">2186</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue to Open (from NAD Future): <a href="lwg-active.html#2051">2051</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 2 issues to Core (from New): <a href="lwg-active.html#2165">2165</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2170">2170</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue to Deferred (from New): <a href="lwg-active.html#2139">2139</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 10 issues to WP (from Ready): <a href="lwg-defects.html#2071">2071</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2074">2074</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2081">2081</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2083">2083</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2086">2086</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2099">2099</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2103">2103</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2105">2105</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2110">2110</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2123">2123</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 6 issues to WP (from Tentatively Ready): <a href="lwg-defects.html#2005">2005</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2011">2011</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2048">2048</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2049">2049</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2056">2056</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2058">2058</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue to NAD (from Tentatively NAD): <a href="lwg-closed.html#2124">2124</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue to NAD (from New): <a href="lwg-closed.html#2171">2171</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R79: 
2012-09-24 pre-Portland mailing
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>136 open issues, up by 60.</li>
<li>1576 closed issues, up by 0.</li>
<li>1712 issues total, up by 60.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following 60 New issues: <a href="lwg-active.html#2130">2130</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2131">2131</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2132">2132</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2133">2133</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2134">2134</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2135">2135</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2136">2136</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2137">2137</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2138">2138</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2139">2139</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2140">2140</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2141">2141</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2142">2142</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2143">2143</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2144">2144</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2145">2145</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2146">2146</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2147">2147</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2148">2148</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2149">2149</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2150">2150</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2151">2151</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2152">2152</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2153">2153</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2154">2154</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2155">2155</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2156">2156</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2157">2157</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2158">2158</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2159">2159</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2160">2160</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2161">2161</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2162">2162</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2163">2163</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2164">2164</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2165">2165</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2166">2166</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2167">2167</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2168">2168</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2169">2169</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2170">2170</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2171">2171</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2172">2172</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2173">2173</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2174">2174</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2175">2175</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2176">2176</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2177">2177</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2178">2178</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2179">2179</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2180">2180</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2181">2181</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2182">2182</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2183">2183</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2184">2184</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2185">2185</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2186">2186</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2187">2187</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2188">2188</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2189">2189</a>.</li>
<li>No issues changed.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>R78: 
2012-02-27 post-Kona mailing
<ul>
<li><b>Summary:</b><ul>
<li>76 open issues, down by 20.</li>
<li>1576 closed issues, up by 26.</li>
<li>1652 issues total, up by 6.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><b>Details:</b><ul>
<li>Added the following 2 New issues: <a href="lwg-active.html#2125">2125</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2126">2126</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following 3 Open issues: <a href="lwg-active.html#2127">2127</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2128">2128</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2129">2129</a>.</li>
<li>Added the following Tentatively NAD issue: <a href="lwg-active.html#2124">2124</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 5 issues from New to NAD: <a href="lwg-closed.html#2073">2073</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#2082">2082</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#2090">2090</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#2107">2107</a>, <a href="lwg-closed.html#2113">2113</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Pending NAD Editorial to NAD Editorial: <a href="lwg-closed.html#2060">2060</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Deferred to Open: <a href="lwg-active.html#1526">1526</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 15 issues from New to Open: <a href="lwg-active.html#2072">2072</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2077">2077</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2088">2088</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2089">2089</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2101">2101</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2108">2108</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2111">2111</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2112">2112</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#2122">2122</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 2 issues from Review to Open: <a href="lwg-active.html#1169">1169</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2059">2059</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 10 issues from New to Ready: <a href="lwg-active.html#2071">2071</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2074">2074</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2081">2081</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2083">2083</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2086">2086</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2099">2099</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2103">2103</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2105">2105</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2110">2110</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2123">2123</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Tentatively Resolved to Resolved: <a href="lwg-defects.html#2066">2066</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 7 issues from New to Review: <a href="lwg-active.html#2080">2080</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#2106">2106</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2109">2109</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Ready to Review: <a href="lwg-active.html#2013">2013</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 6 issues from Review to Tentatively Ready: <a href="lwg-active.html#2005">2005</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2011">2011</a>, <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>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 18 issues from Ready to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#1214">1214</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2009">2009</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2010">2010</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2015">2015</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2021">2021</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2028">2028</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2033">2033</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2039">2039</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2044">2044</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2045">2045</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2047">2047</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2050">2050</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2053">2053</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2061">2061</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2064">2064</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2065">2065</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2067">2067</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2069">2069</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following 2 issues from Tentatively Ready to WP: <a href="lwg-defects.html#2096">2096</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2102">2102</a>.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
</li>
<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-defects.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-defects.html#2012">2012</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2018">2018</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.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-defects.html#2028">2028</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Review to Ready: <a href="lwg-defects.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-defects.html#2021">2021</a>.</li>
<li>Changed the following issue from Open to Review: <a href="lwg-defects.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-defects.html#2021">2021</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2025">2025</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2028">2028</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2032">2032</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.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-defects.html#2012">2012</a>, <a href="lwg-active.html#2013">2013</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2014">2014</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.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-defects.html#2005">2005</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2010">2010</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.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-defects.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-defects.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-defects.html#2009">2009</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.html#2010">2010</a>, <a href="lwg-defects.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-defects.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>Issues reported to the LWG transition through a variety of statuses,
  indicating their progress towards a resolution.  Typically, most issues
  will flow through the following stages.
  </p>

  <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="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>Typically, an issue must have a proposed resolution in the currently
  published issues list, whose wording does not change during LWG review, to
  move to the Ready status.</p>

  <p><b><a name="Voting">Voting</a></b> - This status should not be seen
  in a published issues list, but is a marker for use during meetings to
  indicate an issues was Ready in the pre-meeting mailing, the <b>Proposed
  Resolution</b> is correct, and the issue will be offered to the working
  group at the end of the current meeting to apply to the current working
  paper (WP) or to close in some other appropriate manner.  This easily
  distinguishes such issues from those moving to Ready status during the
  meeting itself, that should not be forwarded until the next meeting.  If
  the issue does not move forward, it should fall back to one of the other
  open states before the next list is published.</p>

  <p><b><a name="Immediate">Immediate</a></b> - This status should not be
  seen in a published issues list, but is a marker for use during meetings
  to indicate an issues was not Ready in the pre-meeting mailing, but the
  <b>Proposed Resolution</b> is correct, and the issue will be offered to
  the working group at the end of the current meeting to apply to the
  current working paper (WP) or to close in some other appropriate manner.
  This status is used only rarely, typically for fixes that are both small
  and obvious, and usually within a meeting of the expected publication of
  a revised standard.  If the issue does not move forward, it should fall
  back to one of the other open states before the next list is published.</p>

  <p>In addition, there are a few ways to categorise and issue that remains
  open to a resolution within the library, but is not actively being worked
  on.
  </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="Core">Core</a></b> - The LWG has discussed the issue, and feels
  that some key part of resolving the issue is better handled by a cleanup of
  the language in the Core part of the standard.  The issue is passed to the Core
  Working Group, which should ideally open a corresponding issue that can be
  linked from the library issue.  Such issues will be revisitted after Core have
  made (or declined to make) any changes.
  </p>

  <p><b><a name="EWG">EWG</a></b> - The LWG has discussed the issue, and wonder
  that some key part of resolving the issue is better handled by some (hopefully
  small) extension to the language.  The issue is passed to the Evolution Working
  Group, which should ideally open a corresponding issue that can be linked from
  the library issue.  Such issues will be revisitted after Evoltion have made (or
  declined to make) any recommendations.  Positive recommendations from EWG will
  often mean the issue transition to <i>Core</i> status while we wait for some
  proposed new feature to land in the working paper.
  </p>

  <p>Ultimately, all issues should reach closure with one of the following statuses.
  </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="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><a name="C++11">C++11</a></b> - (C++ Standard, as revised for 2011) - The full
  WG21/PL22.16 committee has voted to accept the Defect Report's Proposed Resolution into
  the published 2011 revision to the C++ standard, ISO/IEC IS 14882:2011(E).</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="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="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="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="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 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="NAD Concepts">NAD Concepts</a></b> - This status reflects an evolution
  of the language during the development of C++11, where a new feature entered the
  language, called <i>concepts</i>, that fundamentally changed the way templates would
  be specified and written.  While this language feature was removed towards the end of
  the C++11 project, there is a clear intent to revisit this part of the language design.
  During that development, a number of issues were opened against the updated library
  related to use of that feature, or requesting fixes that would require exliciit use of
  the concepts feature.  All such issues have been closed with this status, and may be
  revisitted should this or a similar language feature return for a future standard.</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>

  <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 PL22.16 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#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Cosmin Truta <b>Opened:</b> 2009-07-04 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</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#Open">Open</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>&#xB1;HUGE_VALF</code>,
<code>&#xB1;HUGE_VAL</code> and <code>&#xB1;HUGE_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><i>[2012,Kona]</i></p>

<p>
Move to Open.
</p>
<p>
THe issues is what to do with <tt>-1</tt>.  Should it match 'C' or do the "sane" thing.
A fix here changes behavior, but is probably what we want.
</p>
<p>
Pablo to provide wording, with help from Howard.
</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#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Pablo Halpern <b>Opened:</b> 2009-07-17 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#unord.req">active issues</a> in [unord.req].</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#Open">Open</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><i>[2012, Kona]</i></p>

<p>
Fix up some presentation issues with the wording, combining the big-O expressions into single
expressions rather than the sum of two separate big-Os.
</p>
<p>
Strike "constant or linear", prefer "linear in the number of buckets".
This allows for number of buckets being larger than requested <tt>n</tt> as well.
</p>
<p>
Default <tt>n</tt> to "unspecified" rather than "implementation-defined".  It seems an un-necessary
burden asking vendors to document a quantity that is easily determined through the public API of
these classes.
</p>
<p>
Replace <tt>distance(f,l)</tt> with "number of elements in the range <tt>[f,l)</tt>"
</p>
<p>
Retain in Review with the updated wording
</p>


<p><i>[2012, Portland: Move to Open]</i></p>

<p>
The wording still does not call out Pablo's original concern, that the element constructor is called
no more than <tt>N</tt> times, and that the <tt>N</tt> squared term applies to moves during rehash.
</p>

<p>
Inconsistent use of O(n)+O(N) vs. O(n+N), with a preference for the former.
</p>

<p>
AJM to update wording with a reference to "no more than <tt>N</tt> element constructor calls".
</p>

<p>
Matt concerned that calling out the O(n) requirements is noise, and dangerous noise in suggesting a precision
we do not mean.  The cost of constructing a bucket is very different to constructing an element of user-supplied
type.
</p>

<p>
AJM notes that if there are multiple rehashes, the 'n' complexity is probably not linear.
</p>

<p>
Matt suggests back to Open, Pablo suggests potentially NAD if we keep revisitting without achieving a resolution.
</p>

<p>
Matt suggests complexity we are concerned with is the number of operations, such as constructing elements, moving
nodes, and comparing/hashing keys.  We are less concerned with constructing buckets, which are generally noise in
this bigger picture.
</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 &#x1d4aa;(<tt><i><ins>n + </ins>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 &#x1d4aa;(<tt><i><ins>n + </ins>N</i></tt>) (<tt><i>N</i></tt> is <tt>distance(i, j)</tt>),<br/>
worst case &#x1d4aa;(<tt><i><ins>n + </ins>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 &#x1d4aa;(<tt><i><ins>n + </ins>N</i></tt>) (<tt><i>N</i></tt> is <tt>distance(i, j)</tt>),<br/>
worst case &#x1d4aa;(<tt><i><ins>n + </ins>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>unspecified</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>: <del>Constant</del><ins>Linear in the number of 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>unspecified</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>Linear in the number of 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 number of elements in the range <tt>[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>unspecified</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>: <del>Constant</del><ins>Linear in the number of 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>unspecified</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>Linear in the number of 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 number of elements in the range <tt>[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>unspecified</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>: <del>Constant</del><ins>Linear in the number of 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>unspecified</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>Linear in the number of 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 number of elements in the range <tt>[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>unspecified</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>: <del>Constant</del><ins>Linear in the number of 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>unspecified</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>Linear in the number of 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 number of elements in the range <tt>[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> 2012-11-15</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="1450"></a>1450. Contradiction in <tt>regex_constants</tt></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> 2012-11-15</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. 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#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> BSI <b>Opened:</b> 2011-03-24 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</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-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><i>[2012, Kona]</i></p>

<p>
Re-opened at the request of the concurrency subgroup, who feel there is an issue that needs
clarifying for the (planned) 2017 standard.
</p>

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

<p><i>[2012, Portland]</i></p>

<p>
The concurrency subgroup decided to encourage the LWG to consider a change to 17.2 [library.c] or thereabouts 
to clarify that we are requiring C++-like thread-safety for <tt>setlocale</tt>, so that races are not introduced 
by C locale accesses, even when the C library allows it. This would require e.g. adding "and data race avoidance" 
at the end of 17.2 [library.c] p1:
</p>
<p>
"The C++ standard library also makes available the facilities of the C standard library, suitably adjusted to 
ensure static type safety <ins>and data race avoidance</ins>.",
</p>
<p>
with some further clarifications in the sections mentioned in <a href="lwg-active.html#1526">1526</a>.
</p>
<p>
This seems to be consistent with existing implementations. This would technically not be constraining C implementation, 
but it would be further constraining C libraries used for both C and C++.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3376.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change 17.2 [library.c] p1 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><p>
-1- The C++ standard library also makes available the facilities of the C standard library, suitably adjusted to
ensure static type safety <ins>and data race avoidance</ins>.
</p></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>






<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> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#string.require">active issues</a> in [string.require].</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="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#Review">Review</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Matt Austern <b>Opened:</b> 2010-11-12 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Review">Review</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><i>[
2012 Kona
]</i></p>


<p>
Some concern expressed when presented to full committee for the vote to WP status
that this issue had been resolved without sufficient thought of the consequences
for diverging library implementations, as users may use SFINAE to observe
different behavior from otherwise identical code.  Issue moved back to Review
status, and will be discussed again in Portland with a larger group.

Note for Portland: John Spicer has agreed to represent Core's concerns during
any such discussion within LWG.
</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="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> 2012-11-15</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> 2012-11-15</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="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> 2012-11-15</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> 2012-11-15</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="2051"></a>2051. Explicit <tt>tuple</tt> constructors for more than one parameter</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.4.2 [tuple.tuple], 20.4.2.1 [tuple.cnstr] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Ville Voutilainen <b>Opened:</b> 2011-05-01 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#tuple.tuple">issues</a> in [tuple.tuple].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
One of my constituents wrote the following:
<p/>
-------snip------------
<p/>
So far the only use I've found for <tt>std::tuple</tt> is as an ad-hoc type to emulate
multiple return values. If the tuple ctor was made non-explicit one could
almost think C++ supported multiple return values especially when combined
with <tt>std::tie()</tt>.
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
// assume types line_segment and point
// assume function double distance(point const&amp;, point const&amp;)

std::tuple&lt;point, point&gt;
closest_points(line_segment const&amp; a, line_segment const&amp; b) {
 point ax;
 point bx;
 /* some math */

 return {ax, bx};
}


double
distance(line_segment const&amp; a, line_segment const&amp; b) {
 point ax;
 point bx;
 std::tie(ax, bx) = closest_points(a, b);

 return distance(ax, bx);
}
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
-------snap----------
<p/>
See also the messages starting from lib-29330.
<p/>
Some notes:
</p>
<ol>
<li><tt>pair</tt> allows such a return</li>
<li>a lambda with a deduced return type doesn't allow it for any type</li>
<li><tt>decltype</tt> refuses <tt>{1, 2}</tt></li>
</ol>
<p>
I would recommend making non-unary <tt>tuple</tt> constructors non-explicit.
</p>

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

<p>
Move to NAD Future, this would be an extension to existing functionality.
</p>

<p><i>[Portland, 2012]</i></p>

<p>
Move to Open at the request of the Evolution Working Group.
</p>



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





<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> 2012-11-15</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="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#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Christopher Jefferson <b>Opened:</b> 2011-05-18 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</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#Open">Open</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><i>[2012, Kona]</i></p>

<p>
Moved back to Open by post-meeting issues processing group.
</p>
<p>
Pablo very unhappy about case of breaking code with ambiguous conversion between both iterator types.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair strongly in favor of proposed resolution, this change from C++11 bit Chris in real code,
and it took a while to track down the cause.
</p>
<p>
Move to open, bring in front of a larger group
</p>
<p>
Proposed wording from Jeremiah:

<tt>erase(key)</tt> shall not participate in overload resolution if <tt>iterator</tt> is
convertible to <tt>key</tt>.

Note that this means making <tt>erase(key)</tt> a template-method
</p>
<p>
Poll Chris to find out if he already fixed his code, or fixed his library
</p>
<p>
Jeremiah - allow both overloads, but <tt>enable_if</tt> the <tt>const_iterator</tt> form as
a template, requiring <tt>is_same</tt> to match only <tt>const_iterator</tt>.
</p>
<p>
Poll PJ to see if he has already applied this fix?
</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="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> 2012-11-15</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> 2012-11-15</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 noexcept.
</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><i>[
2012-08-11 Joe Gottman observes:
]</i></p>


<blockquote>
<p>
One of the effects of <tt>basic_string</tt>'s move-assignment operator (21.4.2 [string.cons], Table 71) is
</p>
<blockquote>

<table border="1">

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

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

</table> 

</blockquote>
<p>
If a string implementation uses the small-string optimization and the input string <tt>str</tt> is small enough 
to make use of it, this effect is impossible to achieve. To use the small string optimization, a string has to 
be implemented using something like
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
union
{
   char buffer[SMALL_STRING_SIZE];
   char *pdata;
};
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
When the string is small enough to fit inside <tt>buffer</tt>, the <tt>data()</tt> member function returns 
<tt>static_cast&lt;const char *&gt;(buffer)</tt>, and since <tt>buffer</tt> is an array variable, there 
is no way to implement move so that the moved-to string's <tt>buffer</tt> member variable is equal to 
<tt>this->buffer</tt>.
<p/>
Resolution proposal:
<p/>
Change Table 71 to read:
</p>
<blockquote>

<table border="1">

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

<tr>
<td><tt>data()</tt></td>
<td>points at the array <del>whose first element was pointed at by <tt>str.data()</tt></del>
<ins>that contains the same characters in the same order as <tt>str.data()</tt> contained before 
<tt>operator=()</tt> was called</ins></td>
</tr>

</table> 

</blockquote>
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>




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





<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> 2012-11-15</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="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#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Kazutoshi Satoda <b>Opened:</b> 2011-08-10 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</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#Open">Open</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="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#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Torvald Riegel <b>Opened:</b> 2011-08-18 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</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><i>[2012, Kona]</i></p>

<p>
General direction: lock-free means obstruction-free. Leave the current "should" recommendation 
for progress. It would take a lot of effort to try to do better. 
</p>


<p><i>[2012, Portland: move to Open]</i></p>

<p>
The current wording of 1.10 [intro.multithread] p2 doesn't really say very much.
As far as we can tell the term <i>lock-free</i> is nowhere defined in the standard.
</p>
<p>
James: we would prefer a different way to phrase it.
</p>
<p>
Hans: the research literature includes the term <i>abstraction-free</i> which might be a better fit.
</p>
<p>
Detlef: does Posix define a meaning for blocking (or locking) that we could use?
</p>
<p>
Hans: things like compare-exchange-strong can wait indefinitely.
</p>
<p>
Niklas: what about spin-locks -- still making no progress.
</p>
<p>
Hans: suspect we can only give guidance, at best. The lock-free meaning from the theoretical commmunity (forard progress will be made) is probably too strong here.
</p>
<p>
Atrur: what about livelocks?
</p>
<p>
Hans: each atomic <i>modification</i> completes, even if the whole thing is blocked.
</p>
<p>
Moved to open.
</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> 2012-11-15</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><i>[2012, Kona]</i></p>

<p>
The wording is in this area will be affected by Pablo's paper being adopted at this meeting.
Wait for that paper to be applied before visiting this issue - deliberately leave in New
status until the next meeting.
</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#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-08-20 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</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#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
The currently agreed on proposed wording for <a href="lwg-defects.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><i>[2012, Kona]</i></p>

<p>
The issue is that in three type traits, we are accidentally saying that in certain
circumstances the type must give a specified answer when given an incomplete type.
(Specifically: an array of unknown bound of incomplete type.)  The issue asserts
that there's an ODR violation, since the trait returns false in that case but might
return a different version when the trait is completed.
</p>
<p>
Howard argues: no, there is no risk of an ODR violation.
<tt>is_constructible&lt;A[]></tt> must return <tt>false</tt> regardless of whether
<tt>A</tt> is complete, so there's no reason to forbid an array of unknown bound of
incomplete types. Same argument applies to <tt>is_assignable</tt>. General agreement
with Howard's reasoning.
</p>
<p>
There may be a real issue for <tt>is_destructible</tt>. None of us are sure what
<tt>is_destructible</tt> is supposed to mean for an array of unknown bound
(regardless of whether its type is complete), and the standard doesn't make it clear.
The middle column doesn't say what it's supposed to do for incomplete types.
</p>
<p>
In at least one implementation, <tt>is_destructible&lt;A[]></tt> does return <tt>true</tt>
if <tt>A</tt> is complete, which would result in ODR violation unless we forbid it for
incomplete types.
</p>
<p>
Move to open. We believe there is no issue for <tt>is_constructible</tt> or
<tt>is_assignable</tt>, but that there is a real issue for <tt>is_destructible</tt>.
</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#NAD Editorial">Tentatively NAD Editorial</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Nicolai Josuttis <b>Opened:</b> 2011-08-29 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</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#Tentatively NAD Editorial">Tentatively NAD Editorial</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><i>[2012, Portland: move to Tentatively NAD Editorial]</i></p>

<p>
If no launch policy, it is undefined behavior.
</p>
<p>
Agree with Lawrence, should try all the allowed policies. We will rephrase so that
the policy argument should be <tt>lauch::async</tt>. Current wording seems good enough.
</p>
<p>
We believe this choice of policy statement is really an editorial issue.
</p>



<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> 2012-11-15</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="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> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#istream.unformatted">active issues</a> in [istream.unformatted].</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="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> 2012-11-15</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#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-09-25 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</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><i>[2012, Kona]</i></p>

<p>
Move to Open.
</p>
<p>
There is an interaction with Core issues in this area that Jens is already supplying wording
for.  Review this issue again once Jens wording is available.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair to review clause 15.5 (per Jens suggestion) and recommend any changes, then integrate
Jens wording into this issue.
</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#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> David Krauss <b>Opened:</b> 2011-10-07 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</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#Open">Open</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><i>[2012, Kona]</i></p>

<p>
Move to Open.
</p>
<p>
There appears to be a real concern with initializing aggregates, that can be performed only
using brace-initialization.  There is little interest in the rest of the issue, given the existence
of 'emplace' methods in C++11.
</p>
<p>
Move to Open, to find an acceptable solution for intializing aggregates.  There is the potential
that EWG may have an interest in this area of language consistency as well.
</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="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> 2013-05-06</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><i>[2012, Portland]</i></p>

<p>
This is an allocator issue, and should be dealt with directly by LWG.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-06]</i></p>


<p>
Jonathan suggests to make the new constructors non-explicit and makes some representational improvements.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p><i>[This wording is relative to the FDIS.]</i></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;
    <ins>template &lt;class Allocator&gt;
      packaged_task(allocator_arg_t, const Allocator&amp; a) noexcept;</ins>
    template &lt;class F&gt;
      explicit 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);
    ~packaged_task();
	
    // no copy
    packaged_task(const packaged_task&amp;) = delete;
    <ins>template&lt;class Allocator&gt;
      packaged_task(allocator_arg_t, const Allocator&amp; a, const packaged_task&amp;) = delete;</ins>
    packaged_task&amp; operator=(const packaged_task&amp;) = delete;
    
    // move support
    packaged_task(packaged_task&amp;&amp; rhs) noexcept;
    <ins>template &lt;class Allocator&gt;
      packaged_task(allocator_arg_t, const Allocator&amp; a, packaged_task&amp;&amp; rhs) noexcept;</ins>
    packaged_task&amp; operator=(packaged_task&amp;&amp; rhs) noexcept;
    void swap(packaged_task&amp; other) noexcept;
    [&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;
  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;
  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="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> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#futures.task.members">active issues</a> in [futures.task.members].</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-defects.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><i>[2012, Portland]</i></p>

<p>
This issue appears to be more about library specification than technical
concurrency issues, so should be handled in LWG.
</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="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#Review">Review</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2011-11-14 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</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#Review">Review</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><i>[2012, Portland: move to Review]</i></p>

<p>
Detlef: Do we actually need this fix &mdash; is it detectable?
</p>
<p>
Yes &mdash; you will never get a timeout. Should we strike the whole paragraph?
</p>
<p>
Hans: issue with thread local destruction. 
</p>
<p>
Niklas: I have a strong expectation that a timed wait will respect the timeout
</p>
<p>
<em>agreed</em>
</p>
<p>
Detlef: we want a timed wait that does not time out to return like a non-timed wait; but is this implementable?
</p>
<p>
Pablo: Could we simply append ", or else time out"
</p>
<p>
Detlef: the time out on the shared state needs implementing anyway, even if the underlying O/S does not support a timed join.
</p>
<p>
Hans: the net effect is the timeout does not cover the thread local destruction... ah, I see what you're doing
</p>
<p>
Detlef: happy with Pablo's proposal
</p>
<p>
Wording proposed is to append after the word "joined" add ", or else time out"
</p>
<p>
Moved to review with this wording.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p><i>[This wording is relative to the FDIS.]</i></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<ins>, or else time out</ins>
(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#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-11-18 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</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><i>[2012-02-10, Kona]</i></p>

<p>
Move to NAD.
</p>
<p>
These cv- and ref-qualified function types are abberations in the type system, and do
not represent any actual entity defined by the language.  The notion of cv- and ref-
qualification applies only to the implicit <tt>*this</tt> reference in a member function.
</p>
<p>
However, these types can be produced by quirks of template metaprogramming, the question
remains what the library should do about it.  For exmaple, <tt>add_reference</tt> returns
the original type if passed a reference type, or a <tt>void</tt> type.  Conversely,
<tt>add_pointer</tt> will refurn a pointer to the referenced type when passed a reference.
</p>
<p>
It is most likely that the 'right' answer in any case will depend on the context that the
question is being asked, in terms of forming these obscure types.  The best the LWG can
do is allow an error to propogate back to the user, so they can provide their own meaningful
answer in their context - with additional metaprogramming on their part.  The consensus is
that if anyone is dangerous enough with templates to get themselves into this problem, they
will also have the skills to resolve the problem themselves.  This is not going to trip up
the non-expert developer.
</p>
<p>
Lastly, it was noted that this problem arises only because the language is inconsistent in
providing us these nonesense types that do no really represent anything in the language.
There may be some way Core or Evolution could give us a more consistent type system so that
the LWG does not need to invent an answer at all, should this question need resolving.  This
is another reason to not specify anything at the LWG trait level at this time, leaving the
other working groups free to produce the 'right' answer that we can then follow without
changing the meaning of exisitng, well-defined programs.
</p>

<p><i>[2012-02-10, post-Kona]</i></p>

<p>
Move back to Open. Daniel is concerned that this is not an issue we can simply ignore,
further details to follow.
</p>

<p><i>[2012-10-06, Daniel comments]</i></p>

<p>
This issue really should be resolved as a defect: First, the argument that "forming these obscure types"
should "allow an error to propagate" is inconsistent with the exact same "obscure type" that would be formed
when <tt>std::add_lvalue_reference&lt;void&gt;</tt> wouldn't have an extra rules for <tt>void</tt> types, which
also cannot form references. The originally proposed resolution attempts to apply the same solution for the same 
common property of <tt>void</tt> types and function types with <em>cv</em>-qualifiers or <em>ref</em>-qualifier.
These functions had the property of <tt>ReferentType</tt> during concept time (see 
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#749">CWG 749</a> bullet three for the final 
wording).
<p/>
Core issue <a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1417">CWG 1417</a> has clarified
that any attempt to form a reference of a pointer to a function type with <em>cv</em>-qualifiers or 
<em>ref</em>-qualifier is ill-formed. Unfortunately, many compilers don't implement this yet.
<p/>
I also would like to warn about so-called "obscure" types: The problem is that these can occur as the side effect
of finding a best match overload of function templates, where this type is exactly correct for one of these
overloads, but causes a deep (not-sfinae-friendly) error for others where one of these traits are part of the 
signature.
<p/>
Existing experience with <tt>void</tt> types shows, that this extra rule is not so unexpected. Further, any usage 
of the result types of these traits as argument types or return types of functions would make these ill-formed 
(and in a template context would be sfinaed away), so the expected effects are rarely unnoticed. Checking
all existing explicit usages of the traits <tt>add_rvalue_reference</tt>, <tt>add_lvalue_reference</tt>, and
<tt>add_pointer</tt> didn't show any example where the error would be silent: <tt>add_rvalue_reference</tt>
is used to specify the return value of <tt>declval()</tt> and the instantiation of <tt>declval&lt;void() const&gt;()</tt>
would be invalid, because of the attempt to return a function type. Similarly, <tt>add_lvalue_reference</tt>
is used to specify the return type of <tt>unique_ptr&lt;T&gt;::operator*()</tt>. Again, any instantiation with 
<tt>void() const</tt> wouldn't remain unnoticed. The trait <tt>add_pointer</tt> is used to specify the trait
<tt>std::decay</tt> and this is an interesting example, because it is well-formed when instantiated with <tt>void</tt> 
types, too, and is heavily used throughout the library specification. All use-cases would not be negatively affected 
by the suggested acceptance of function types with <em>cv</em>-qualifiers or <em>ref</em>-qualifier, because they involve 
types that are either function arguments, function parameters or types were references are formed from.
<p/>
The alternative would be to add an additional extra rule that doesn't define a type member 'type' when
we have a function type with <em>cv</em>-qualifiers or <em>ref</em>-qualifier. This is better than the
current state but it is not superior than the proposal to specify the result as the original type, because
both variants are sfinae-friendly. A further disadvantage of the "non-type" approach here would be that any
usage of <tt>std::decay</tt> would require special protection against these function types, because 
instantiating <tt>std::decay&lt;void() const&gt;</tt> again would lead to a deep, sfinae-unfriendly error.
<p/>
The following example demonstrates the problem: Even though the second <tt>f</tt> template is the best final
match here, the first one will be instantiated. During that process <tt>std::decay&lt;T&gt;::type</tt>
becomes instantiated as well and will raise a deep error, because as part of the implementation the trait
<tt>std::add_pointer&lt;void() const&gt;</tt> becomes instantiated:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;type_traits&gt;

template&lt;class T&gt;
typename std::decay&lt;T&gt;::type f(T&amp;&amp; t);

template&lt;class T, class U&gt;
U f(U u);

int main() {
  f&lt;void() const&gt;(0);
}
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
When the here proposed resolution would be applied this program would be well-formed and selects the expected function.
</p>

<p>
Previous resolution:
</p>
<blockquote class="note">
<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>
</blockquote>

<p>
The following revised proposed resolution defines - in the absense of a proper core language definition - a new
term <em>referenceable type</em> as also suggested by the resolution for LWG <a href="lwg-defects.html#2196">2196</a> as an
umbrella of the negation of void types and function types with <em>cv</em>-qualifiers or <em>ref</em>-qualifier. 
This simplifies and minimizes the requires wording changes.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3376.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Add the following new definition to 17.3 [definitions] as indicated:</p>
<p><b>referenceable type</b> [defns.referenceable]</p>
<blockquote><p>
An object type, a function type that does not have <em>cv</em>-qualifiers or a <em>ref</em>-qualifier, or a reference type.
[<i>Note</i>: The term describes a type to which a reference can be created, including reference types. &mdash; <i>end note</i>]
</p></blockquote>
</li>

<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 <del>an object <tt>type</tt> or function type</del><ins>a referenceable type</ins><br/>
then the member typedef <tt>type</tt><br/>
shall name <tt>T&amp;</tt>; otherwise, <del>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,</del> <tt>type</tt> shall name <tt>T</tt>.<br/>
<ins>[ <i>Note</i>: This rule reflects the semantics of reference collapsing (8.3.2 [dcl.ref]). &mdash; <i>end note</i> ]</ins>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>template &lt;class T&gt;<br/>
struct<br/>
add_rvalue_reference;</tt>
</td>
<td>
If <tt>T</tt> names <del>an object <tt>type</tt> or function type</del><ins>a referenceable type</ins><br/>
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>
<ins>If <tt>T</tt> names a referenceable type or a (possibly <i>cv</i>-qualified) <tt>void</tt> type then<br/></ins>
<del>T</del><ins>t</ins>he member typedef <tt>type</tt> shall name the same type as<br/>
<tt>remove_reference&lt;T&gt;::type*</tt><ins>; otherwise, <tt>type</tt> shall name <tt>T</tt></ins>.
</td>
</tr>

</table>

</li>
</ol>





<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> 2012-11-15</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="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#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Dave Abrahams <b>Opened:</b> 2011-11-30 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-01-15</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#Open">Open</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><i>[2012, Kona]</i></p>

<p>
Move to Review.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair: This only applies to input iterators, so keep that in mind when thinking about this.
</p>
<p>
STL: I see what B is doing, but not A.
</p>
<p>
Howard: I agree.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair: Should we use <tt>add_rvalue_reference</tt>?
</p>
<p>
STL: No, we do not want reference collapsing.
</p>
<p>
STL: Re A, messing with the CV qualification scares me.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair: Agree. That would break my intent.
</p>
<p>
STL: Actually I don't think it's actually wrong, but I still don't see what it's doing.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair: A is picking the value type, B is picking the proxy type.
</p>
<p>
Howard: I like returning the proxy type.
</p>
<p>
STL: Returning a reference (B) seems right, because the requirements say "reference".
I suspect that B works correctly if you have a move iterator wrapping a move iterator
wrapping a thing.  I think that A would mess up the type in the middle.
</p>
<p>
Considerable discussion about which version is correct, checking various examples.
</p>
<p>
STL: Still think B is right. Still don't understand A. In A we are losing the proxyness.
</p>
<p>
Howard: Agree 100%. We don't want to lose the proxy. If it's const, so be it.
</p>
<p>
STL: B is also understandable by mortals.
</p>
<p>
Howard: Remove to review, keep A but move it out of the proposed resolution area
(but keep it for rational).
</p>
<p>
Alisdair: Adding an explanatory note might be a good idea, if someone wants to write one.
</p>
<p>
Walter: Concerned about losing the word "reference" in p.1.
</p>
<p>
Howard: <tt>move_iterator</tt> will return an xvalue or a prvalue, both of which are rvalues.
</p>

<p><i>[Proposed resolution A, rejected in preference to the currently proposed resolution (B)

<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>

]</i></p>


<p><i>[2012, Portland: Move to Tentatively Ready]</i></p>

<p>
AJM wonders if the implied trait might be useful elsewhere, and worth adding to type traits as a
transformation type trait.
</p>

<p>
Suspicion that the Range SG might find such a trait useful, but wait until there is clear additional
use of such a trait before standardizing.
</p>

<p>
Minor wording tweak to use <tt>add_rvalue_reference</tt> rather than manually adding the <tt>&amp;&amp;</tt>,
then move to Tentatively Ready.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-01-09 Howard Hinnat comments]</i></p>


<p>
I believe the P/R for LWG 2106 is incorrect (item 3).  The way it currently reads, <tt>move_iterator&lt;I&gt;::reference</tt> 
is <em>always</em> an lvalue reference.  I.e. if <tt>R</tt> is an lvalue reference type, then reference becomes 
<tt>add_rvalue_reference&lt;R&gt;::type</tt> which is just <tt>R</tt>. And if <tt>R</tt> is not a reference type, 
then reference becomes <tt>R</tt> (which is also just <tt>R</tt> ;-)).
</p>

<p>
I believe the correct wording is what was there previously:
</p>

<p>
-?- Let <tt>R</tt> be <tt>iterator_traits&lt;Iterator&gt;::reference</tt>. If <tt>is_reference&lt;R&gt;::value</tt> 
is true, 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;R&gt;::type&amp;&amp;</tt>, otherwise as a synonym for 
<tt>R</tt>.
</p>

<p>
Additionally Marc Glisse points out that <tt>move_iterator&lt;I&gt;::operator*()</tt> should return 
<tt>static_cast&lt;reference&gt;(*current)</tt>, not <tt>std::move(*current)</tt>.
</p>

<p>
Previous resolution:
</p>
<blockquote class="note">
<p>This wording is relative to the FDIS.</p>

<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>add_rvalue_reference&lt;<i>R</i>&gt;::type</tt>, otherwise as a synonym
for <tt><i>R</i></tt>.</ins>
</p></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3485.</p>

<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 indirection operator implicitly converts the value returned by the underlying iterators
indirection 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>

<li><p>Edit 24.5.3.3.4 [move.iter.op.star] p1 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
reference operator*() const;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-1- <i>Returns</i>: <tt><del>std::move</del><ins>static_cast&lt;reference&gt;</ins>(*current)</tt>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>






<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#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2011-12-01 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</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>
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-defects.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-defects.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="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.11.3 [unexpected] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Howard Hinnant <b>Opened:</b> 2011-12-06 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</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#Open">Open</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><i>[2012-01-30: Howard comments]</i></p>


<p>
The C++98&#47;03 wording is somewhat ambiguous:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
Calls the terminate_handler function in effect immediately after evaluating the throw-expression...
</p></blockquote>
<p>
There are potentially two throw-expressions being referred to here, and it is not clear if this sentence is referring to just the first or both:
</p>
<ol>
<li><tt>throw <i>assignment-expression</i>;</tt></li>
<li><tt>throw;</tt></li>
</ol>
<p>
There is ample evidence in current implementations that it is understood that <i>only</i> 
1. was meant. But clearly both 1 and 2 could have been meant. We need a clarification. Does an execution 
of a rethrow (throw;) update which handlers can potentially be called?
</p>
<ol>
<li value="2"><tt>throw;</tt> // update handlers to get_xxx()?</li>
</ol>
<p>
My opinion: Go with existing practice, and clarify what that practice is, if surveys find that everyone 
does the same thing. Gcc 4.2 and Apple do 1. only, and do not reset the handlers to the current handlers 
on throw;.
<p/>
If current practice is not unanimously one way or the other, I have no strong opinion. I have not found 
a motivating use case for the use of any particular handler. Most applications set the handlers once at 
the beginning of the program and then do not change them, and so will not be impacted by whatever decision 
is made here.
</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#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-11-30 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</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#Open">Open</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><i>[2012, Kona]</i></p>

<p>
What we really need is a type trait to indicate if a type can be derived from.  Howard reports
Clang and libc++ have had success with this approach.
</p>
<p>
Howard to provide wording, and AJM to alert Core that we may be wanting to add a new trait
that requires compiler support.
</p>



<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#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-12-09 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</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><i>[2012, Kona]</i></p>

<p>
Agree with Daniel that we potentially broke some C++03 user code, accept the changes striking
"contextually" from tables.  Stefan to provide revised wording for section 25, and figure out
changes to section 30.
</p>
<p>
Move to open, and then to Review when updated wording from Stefan is available.
</p>

<p><i>[2012-10-12, STL comments]</i></p>


<ol>
<li>
<p>
The current proposed resolution still isn't completely satisfying. It would certainly be possible for the Standard to 
require these various expressions to be implicitly and contextually convertible to <tt>bool</tt>, but that would have 
a subtle consequence (which, I will argue, is undesirable - regardless of the fact that it dates all the way back to 
C++98/03). It would allow users to provide really wacky types to the Standard Library, with one of two effects:
</p>
<ol style="list-style-type:upper-alpha">
<li>
<p>Standard Library implementations would have to go to great lengths to respect such wacky types, essentially using 
<tt>static_cast&lt;bool&gt;</tt> when invoking any predicates or comparators.
</p>
</li>

<li>
<p>
Otherwise, such wacky types would be de facto nonportable, because they would make Standard Library implementations 
explode.
</p>
</li>
</ol>

<p>
Effect B is the status quo we're living with today. What Standard Library implementations want to do with <tt>pred(args)</tt> 
goes beyond "<tt>if (pred(args))</tt>" (C++03), contextually converting <tt>pred(args)</tt> to <tt>bool</tt> (C++11), or 
implicitly and contextually converting <tt>pred(args)</tt> to <tt>bool</tt> (the current proposed resolution). 
Implementations want to say things like:
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
if (pred(args))
if (!pred(args))
if (cond &amp;&amp; pred(args))
if (cond &amp;&amp; !pred(args))
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
These are real examples taken from Dinkumware's implementation. There are others that would be realistic 
("<tt>pred(args) &amp;&amp; cond</tt>", "<tt>cond || pred(args)</tt>", etc.)
<p/>
Although negation was mentioned in this issue's Discussion section, and in LWG <a href="lwg-defects.html#556">556</a>'s, the current proposed 
resolution doesn't fix this problem. Requiring <tt>pred(args)</tt> to be implicitly and contextually convertible to <tt>bool</tt> 
doesn't prevent <tt>operator!()</tt> from being overloaded and returning <tt>std::string</tt> (as a wacky example). More 
ominously, it doesn't prevent <tt>operator&amp;&amp;()</tt> and <tt>operator||()</tt> from being overloaded and destroying 
short-circuiting.
</p>

</li>

<li>
<p>
I would like LWG input before working on Standardese for a new proposed resolution. Here's an outline of what I'd like to 
do:
</p>
<ol style="list-style-type:upper-alpha">
<li>
<p>
Introduce a new "concept" in 17.6.3 [utility.requirements], which I would call <tt>BooleanTestable</tt> in the 
absence of better ideas.
</p>
</li>

<li>
<p>
Centralize things and reduce verbosity by having everything simply refer to <tt>BooleanTestable</tt> when necessary. 
I believe that the tables could say "Return type: <tt>BooleanTestable</tt>", while Predicate/BinaryPredicate/Compare 
would need the incantation "shall satisfy the requirements of BooleanTestable".
</p>
</li>

<li>
<p>
Resolve the tug-of-war between users (who occasionally want to do weird things) and implementers (who don't want to have 
to contort their code) by requiring that:
</p>
<ol style="list-style-type:upper-roman">
<li>
<p>
Given a <tt>BooleanTestable x</tt>, <tt>x</tt> is both implicitly and contextually convertible to <tt>bool</tt>.
</p>
</li>

<li>
<p>
Given a <tt>BooleanTestable x</tt>, <tt>!x</tt> is <tt>BooleanTestable</tt>. (This is intentionally "recursive".)
</p>
</li>

<li>
<p>
Given a <tt>BooleanTestable x</tt>, <tt>bool t = x, t2(x), f = !x;</tt> has the postcondition <tt>t == t2 &amp;&amp; t != f</tt>.
</p>
</li>

<li>
<p>
Given a <tt>BooleanTestable x</tt> and a <tt>BooleanTestable y</tt> of possibly different types, "<tt>x &amp;&amp; y</tt>" 
and "<tt>x || y</tt>" invoke the built-in <tt>operator&amp;&amp;()</tt> and <tt>operator||()</tt>, triggering short-circuiting.
</p>
</li>

<li>
<p>
<tt>bool</tt> is <tt>BooleanTestable</tt>.
</p>
</li>
</ol>

</li>

</ol>

<p>
 I believe that this simultaneously gives users great latitude to use types other than <tt>bool</tt>, while allowing 
 implementers to write reasonable code in order to get their jobs done. (If I'm forgetting anything that implementers 
 would want to say, please let me know.)
</p>

</li>

<li>
<p>
About requirement (I): As Daniel patiently explained to me, we need to talk about both implicit conversions and 
contextual conversions, because it's possible for a devious type to have both "<tt>explicit operator bool()</tt>" 
and "<tt>operator int()</tt>", which might behave differently (or be deleted, etc.).
</p>
</li>

<li>
<p>
About requirement (IV): This is kind of tricky. What we'd like to say is, "<tt>BooleanTestable</tt> can't ever trigger 
an overloaded logical operator". However, given a perfectly reasonable type Nice - perhaps even <tt>bool</tt> itself! - 
other code (perhaps a third-party library) could overload <tt>operator&amp;&amp;(Nice, Evil)</tt>. Therefore, I believe 
that the requirement should be "no first use" - the Standard Library will ask for various <tt>BooleanTestable</tt> types 
from users (for example, the result of "<tt>first != last</tt>" and the result of "<tt>pred(args)</tt>"), and as long 
as they don't trigger overloaded logical operators with each other, everything is awesome.
</p>
</li>


<li>
<p>
About requirement (V): This is possibly redundant, but it's trivial to specify, makes it easier for users to understand 
what they need to do ("oh, I can always achieve this with <tt>bool</tt>"), and provides a "base case" for requirement 
(IV) that may or may not be necessary.  Since <tt>bool</tt> is <tt>BooleanTestable</tt>, overloading 
<tt>operator&amp;&amp;(bool, Other)</tt> (etc.) clearly makes the <tt>Other</tt> type non-<tt>BooleanTestable</tt>.
</p>
</li>
</ol>



<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#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Thomas Plum <b>Opened:</b> 2011-12-10 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</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><i>[2012, Kona]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Open.
</p>
<p>
There appears to be a real need for clarification in the standard, and
implementations differ in their current interpretation.  This will need
some research by implementers and a proposed resolution before further
discussion is likely to be fruitful.
</p>



<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#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Dave Abrahams <b>Opened:</b> 2011-12-09 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</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#Open">Open</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><i>[2012, Kona]</i></p>

<p>
Move to Open.
</p>
<p>
<tt>is_nothrow_constructible</tt> is defined in terms of <tt>is_constructible</tt>, which is defined
by looking at a hypothetical variable and asking whether the variable definition is known not to
throw exceptions. The issue claims that this also examines the type's destructor, given the context,
and thus will return <tt>false</tt> if the destructor can potentially throw. At least one
implementation (Howard's) does return <tt>false</tt> if the constructor is <tt>noexcept(true)</tt>
and the destructor is <tt>noexcept(false)</tt>. So that's not a strained interpretation.
The issue is asking for this to be defined in terms of placement <tt>new</tt>, instead of in terms
of a temporary object, to make it clearer that <tt>is_nothrow_constructible</tt> looks at the
<tt>noexcept</tt> status of only the constructor, and not the destructor.
</p>
<p>
Sketch of what the wording would look like:
</p>
<p>
require <tt>is_constructible</tt>, and then also require that a placement <tt>new</tt> operation
does not throw. (Remembering the title of this issue... What does this imply for <tt>swap</tt>?
</p>
<p>
If we accept this resolution, do we need any changes to <tt>swap</tt>?
</p>
<p> STL argues: no, because you are already forbidden from passing anything with a throwing
desturctor to <tt>swap</tt>.
</p>
<p>
Dietmar argues: no, not true. Maybe statically the destructor can conceivably throw for some
values, but maybe there are some values known not to throw. In that case, it's correct to
pass those values to <tt>swap</tt>.
</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#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Benjamin Kosnik <b>Opened:</b> 2011-12-15 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</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#Open">Open</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><i>[21012, Kona]</i></p>

<p>
Move to Open.
</p>
<p>
This is a feature request.
</p>
<p>
Walter is slightly uncomfortable with processing feature requests through the issues lists.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair says this is far from the first feature request that has come in from the issues list.
</p>
<p>
STL: The fact that you can turn off grouping on hex output is compelling.
</p>
<p>
Marshall: if we add this flag, we'll need to update tables 87-91 as well.
</p>
<p>
STL: If it has been implemented somewhere, and it works, we'd be glad to add it.
</p>
<p>
Howard: We need to say what the default is.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair sumarizes:
</p>
<p>
(1) We want clear wording that says what the effect is of turning the flag off;
</p>
<p>
(2) what the default values are, and
</p>
<p>
(3) how this fits into tables 87-90. (and 128)
</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#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Alf P. Steinbach <b>Opened:</b> 2011-12-16 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-12-25</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#Open">Open</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><i>[2012-08-25 Geoffrey Romer comments in <a href="http://accu.org/cgi-bin/wg21/message?wg=lib&amp;msg=32978">c++std-lib-32978</a>]</i></p>


<ol>
<li><p>
The current P/R seems to intend to support at least two different implementation techniques &mdash; additional 
unusable templates that catch forbidden arguments or replacing existing constructors by templates that 
ensure ill-formed code inside the template body, when the requirements are not met. It seems unclear whether
the current wording allows the second approach, though. It should be considered to allow both strategies or
if that is not possible the note should be clearer.
</p></li>

<li><p>
The very same problem exists for the <tt>reset</tt> member function, but even worse, because the current
specification is more than clear that the deleted <tt>reset</tt> function will catch all cases not equal to 
<tt>pointer</tt>. It seems confusing at best to have different policies for the constructor and for the <tt>reset</tt> 
function. In this case, the question in regard to implementation freedom mentioned above is even more important.
</p></li>

<li><p>
It's awkward to refer to "the constructors" twice in the same sentence; I suggest revising the sentence as 
"...except that they do not accept argument pointers <tt>p</tt> to types derived from <tt>T</tt>"
</p></li>
</ol>

<p><i>[2012-12-20: Geoffrey Romer comments and provides a revised resolution]</i></p>


<p>
The array specialization of <tt>unique_ptr</tt> differs from the primary template in several ways,
including the following:
</p>
<ul>
<li><p>
<tt>unique_ptr&lt;T[], D&gt;</tt> cannot be constructed from a plain pointer whose type is not
exactly <tt>unique_ptr&lt;T[], D&gt;::pointer</tt> or <tt>nullptr_t</tt>.
</p></li>
<li><p>
<tt>unique_ptr&lt;T[], D&gt;</tt> cannot be constructed from a <tt>unique_ptr&lt;U[], E&gt;&amp;&amp;</tt> 
unless <tt>U</tt> is exactly <tt>T</tt> and <tt>E</tt> is exactly <tt>D</tt>.
</p></li>
<li><p>
<tt>unique_ptr&lt;T[], D&gt;</tt> cannot be moveassigned from a <tt>unique_ptr&lt;U[], E&gt;&amp;&amp;</tt> 
unless <tt>U</tt> is exactly <tt>T</tt> and <tt>E</tt> is exactly <tt>D</tt>.
</p></li>
<li><p>
<tt>unique_ptr&lt;T[], D&gt;::reset</tt> cannot take an argument whose type is not exactly
<tt>unique_ptr&lt;T[], D&gt;::pointer</tt> or <tt>nullptr_t</tt>.
</p></li>
<li><p>
<tt>default_delete&lt;T[]&gt;</tt> cannot be constructed from a <tt>default_delete&lt;U[]&gt;</tt> unless 
<tt>U</tt> is exactly <tt>T</tt>.
</p></li>
<li><p>
<tt>default_delete&lt;T[]&gt;::operator()</tt> cannot be called on a pointer whose type is not
exactly <tt>T*</tt>.
</p></li>
</ul>
<p>
The common intent of all these restrictions appears to be to disallow implicit conversions from
pointer-to-derived-class to pointer-to-base-class in contexts where the pointer is known to point
to an array, because such conversions are inherently unsafe; deleting or subscripting the result
of such a conversion leads to undefined behavior (see also CWG 1504). However, these restrictions 
have the effect of disallowing all implicit conversions in those contexts, including most notably 
cv-qualification, but also user-defined conversions, and possibly others. This PR narrows all those 
restrictions, to disallow only unsafe pointer-to-derived to pointer-to-base conversions, while 
allowing all others.
<p/>
I removed the nebulous language stating that certain functions "will not accept" certain arguments. 
Instead I use explicitly deleted template functions, which participate in overload resolution only 
for pointer-to-derived to pointer-to-base conversions. This is more consistent with the existing 
text and easier to express correctly than an approach based on declaring certain types of calls to 
be ill-formed, but may produce inferior compiler diagnostics.
<p/>
Wherever possible, this PR defines the semantics of template specializations in terms of their
differences from the primary template. This improves clarity and minimizes the risk of
unintended differences (e.g. LWG <a href="lwg-defects.html#2169">2169</a>, which this PR also fixes). This PR also makes it 
explicit that the specialization inherits the description of all members, not just member functions, 
from the primary template and, in passing, clarifies the default definition of pointer in the
specialization.
<p/>
This resolution only disallows pointer-to-derived to pointer-to-base conversions between
ordinary pointer types; if user-defined pointer types provide comparable conversions, it is their
responsibility to ensure they are safe. This is consistent with C++'s general preference for
expressive power over safety, and for assuming the user knows what they're doing;
furthermore, enforcing such a restriction on user-defined types appears to be impractical without
cooperation from the user.
<p/>
The "base class without regard to cv-qualifiers" language is intended to parallel the specification
of <tt>std::is_base_of</tt>.
<p/>
Jonathan Wakely has a working implementation of this PR patched into libstdc++.
</p>

<p>
Previous resolution:
</p>
<blockquote class="note">
<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>
</blockquote>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3485.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Revise 20.7.1.1.3 [unique.ptr.dltr.dflt1] as follows</p>
<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template &lt;class T&gt; struct default_delete&lt;T[]&gt; {
    constexpr default_delete() noexcept = default;
    <ins>template &lt;class U&gt; default_delete(const default_delete&lt;U&gt;&amp;) noexcept;</ins>
    void operator()(T*) const;
    template &lt;class U&gt; void operator()(U*) const = delete;
  };
}
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
<ins>-?- Descriptions are provided below only for member functions that have behavior different from the
primary template.</ins>
</p>
<blockquote>
<pre>
<ins>template &lt;class U&gt; default_delete(const default_delete&lt;U&gt;&amp;) noexcept;</ins>
</pre>
<blockquote><p>
<ins>-?- This constructor behaves the same as in the primary template except that it shall not participate
in overload resolution unless:</ins>
</p>
<ul>
<li><p>
<ins><tt>U</tt> is an array type, and</ins>
</p></li>
<li><p>
<ins><tt>V*</tt> is implicitly convertible to <tt>T*</tt>, and</ins>
</p></li>
<li><p>
<ins><tt>T</tt> is not a base class of <tt>V</tt> (without regard to <i>cv</i>-qualifiers),</ins>
</p></li>
</ul>
<p>
<ins>where <tt>V</tt> is the array element type of <tt>U</tt>.</ins>
</p>
</blockquote>

<blockquote><pre>
void operator()(T* ptr) const;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-1- <i>Effects</i>: calls <tt>delete[]</tt> on <tt>ptr</tt>.
<p/>
-2- <i>Remarks</i>: If <tt>T</tt> is an incomplete type, the program is ill-formed.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote><pre>
<ins>template &lt;class U&gt; void operator()(U*) const = delete;</ins>
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
<ins>-?- <i>Remarks</i>: This function shall not participate in overload resolution unless <tt>T</tt> is a base 
class of <tt>U</tt> (without regard to <i>cv</i>-qualifiers).</ins>
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>

</blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Revise 20.7.1.2 [unique.ptr.single]/3 as follows:</p>
<blockquote><p>
If the type <tt>remove_reference&lt;D&gt;::type::pointer</tt> exists, then <tt>unique_ptr&lt;T, D&gt;::pointer</tt> 
shall be a synonym for <tt>remove_reference&lt;D&gt;::type::pointer</tt>. Otherwise <tt>unique_ptr&lt;T, D&gt;::pointer</tt> 
shall be a synonym for <tt><del>T</del><ins>element_type</ins>*</tt>. The type <tt>unique_ptr&lt;T, D&gt;::pointer</tt> 
shall satisfy the requirements of <tt>NullablePointer</tt> (17.6.3.3 [nullablepointer.requirements]).
</p></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Revise 20.7.1.3 [unique.ptr.runtime] as follows:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template &lt;class T, class D&gt; class unique_ptr&lt;T[], D&gt; {
  public:
    typedef <i>see below</i> pointer;
    typedef T element_type;
    typedef D deleter_type;

    <i>// 20.7.1.3.1, constructors</i>
    constexpr unique_ptr() noexcept;
    explicit unique_ptr(pointer p) noexcept;
    <ins>template &lt;class U&gt; explicit unique_ptr(U* p) = delete;</ins>
    unique_ptr(pointer p, <i>see below</i> d) noexcept;
    <ins>template &lt;class U&gt; unique_ptr(U* p, <i>see below</i> d) = delete;</ins>
    unique_ptr(pointer p, <i>see below</i> d) noexcept;
    <ins>template &lt;class U&gt; unique_ptr(U* p, <i>see below</i> d) = delete;</ins>
    unique_ptr(unique_ptr&amp;&amp; u) noexcept;
    constexpr unique_ptr(nullptr_t) noexcept : unique_ptr() { }
    <ins>template &lt;class U, class E&gt; unique_ptr(unique_ptr&lt;U, E&gt;&amp;&amp; u) noexcept;</ins>

    <i>// destructor</i>
    ~unique_ptr();

    <i>// assignment</i>
    unique_ptr&amp; operator=(unique_ptr&amp;&amp; u) noexcept;
    <ins>template &lt;class U, class E&gt; unique_ptr&amp; operator=(unique_ptr&lt;U, E&gt;&amp;&amp; u) noexcept;</ins>
    unique_ptr&amp; operator=(nullptr_t) noexcept;

    <i>// 20.7.1.3.2, observers</i>
    T&amp; operator[](size_t i) const;
    pointer get() const noexcept;
    deleter_type&amp; get_deleter() noexcept;
    const deleter_type&amp; get_deleter() const noexcept;
    explicit operator bool() const noexcept;

    <i>// 20.7.1.3.3 modifiers</i>
    pointer release() noexcept;
    void reset(pointer p = pointer()) noexcept;
    <del>void reset(nullptr_t) noexcept;</del>
    template &lt;class U&gt; void reset(U<ins>*</ins>) = delete;
    void swap(unique_ptr&amp; u) noexcept;

    <i>// disable copy from lvalue</i>
    unique_ptr(const unique_ptr&amp;) = delete;
    unique_ptr&amp; operator=(const unique_ptr&amp;) = delete;
  };
}
</pre></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>
-1- A specialization for array types is provided with a slightly altered interface.
</p>
<ul>
<li><p>
Conversions <del>between different types of <tt>unique_ptr&lt;T[], D&gt;</tt></del><ins>from
<tt>unique_ptr&lt;Derived[]&gt;</tt> to <tt>unique_ptr&lt;Base[]&gt;</tt>, where <tt>Base</tt> is a 
base class of <tt>Derived</tt>, from <tt>auto_ptr</tt>,</ins> or to or from the non-array forms of
<tt>unique_ptr</tt> produce an ill-formed program.
</p></li>
<li><p>
Pointers to types derived from <tt>T</tt> are rejected by the constructors, and by <tt>reset</tt>.
</p></li>
<li><p>
The observers <tt>operator*</tt> and <tt>operator-&gt;</tt> are not provided.
</p></li>
<li><p>
The indexing observer <tt>operator[]</tt> is provided.
</p></li>
<li><p>
The default deleter will call <tt>delete[]</tt>.
</p></li>
</ul>
<p>
-2- Descriptions are provided below only for <del>member functions that have behavior 
different</del><ins>members that differ</ins> from the primary template.
<p/>
-3- The template argument <tt>T</tt> shall be a complete type.
</p>
</blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Revise 20.7.1.3.1 [unique.ptr.runtime.ctor] as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<pre>
<del>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;</del>
<ins>template &lt;class U&gt; explicit unique_ptr(U* p) = delete;</ins>
<ins>template &lt;class U&gt; unique_ptr(U* p, <i>see below</i> d) = delete;</ins>
<ins>template &lt;class U&gt; unique_ptr(U* p, <i>see below</i> d) = delete;</ins>
</pre><blockquote><p>
<del>These constructors behave the same as in the primary template except that they do not accept pointer
types which are convertible to pointer. [<i>Note</i>: One implementation technique is to create private
templated overloads of these members. &mdash; <i>end note</i>]</del><ins>These constructors shall not 
participate in overload resolution unless:</ins></p>
<ul>
<li><p><ins><tt>pointer</tt> is a pointer type, and</ins></p></li>
<li><p><ins><tt>U*</tt> is implicitly convertible to <tt>pointer</tt>, and</ins></p></li>
<li><p><ins><tt>T</tt> is a base class of <tt>U</tt> (without regard to <i>cv</i>-qualifiers).</ins></p></li>
</ul>
<p><ins>The type of <tt>d</tt> is determined as in the corresponding non-deleted constructors.</ins></p>
</blockquote>
<pre>
<ins>template &lt;class U, class E&gt; unique_ptr(unique_ptr&lt;U, E&gt;&amp;&amp; u) noexcept;</ins>
</pre><blockquote><p>
<ins>-?- This constructor behaves the same as in the primary template, except that it shall not participate
in overload resolution unless:</ins>
</p>
<ul>
<li><p><ins><tt>unique_ptr&lt;U, E&gt;::pointer</tt> is implicitly convertible to <tt>pointer</tt>, and</ins></p></li>
<li><p><ins><tt>U</tt> is an array type, and</ins></p></li>
<li><p><ins>either <tt>D</tt> is a reference type and <tt>E</tt> is the same type as <tt>D</tt>, or <tt>D</tt> 
is not a reference type and <tt>E</tt> is implicitly convertible to <tt>D</tt>, and</ins></p></li>
<li><p><ins>either at least one of <tt>pointer</tt> and <tt>unique_ptr&lt;U, E&gt;::pointer</tt> is not a 
pointer type, or <tt>T</tt> is not a base class of the array element type of <tt>U</tt> (without regard to 
<i>cv</i>-qualifiers).</ins></p></li>
</ul>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Insert a new sub-clause following 20.7.1.3.1 [unique.ptr.runtime.ctor] as follows:</p>

<p><ins>?? <tt>unique_ptr</tt> assignment [unique.ptr.runtime.asgn]</ins></p>

<blockquote>
<pre>
<ins>template &lt;class U, class E&gt; unique_ptr&amp; operator=(unique_ptr&lt;U, E&gt;&amp;&amp; u) noexcept;</ins>
</pre><blockquote><p>
<ins>-?- This operator behaves the same as in the primary template, except that it shall not participate in
overload resolution unless:</ins></p>
<ul>
<li><p><ins><tt>unique_ptr&lt;U, E&gt;::pointer</tt> is implicitly convertible to <tt>pointer</tt>, and</ins></p></li>
<li><p><ins><tt>U</tt> is an array type, and</ins></p></li>
<li><p><ins>either <tt>D</tt> is a reference type and <tt>E</tt> is the same type as <tt>D</tt>, or <tt>D</tt> 
is not a reference type and <tt>E</tt> is implicitly convertible to <tt>D</tt>, and</ins></p></li>
<li><p><ins>either at least one of <tt>pointer</tt> and <tt>unique_ptr&lt;U, E&gt;::pointer</tt> is not a 
pointer type, or <tt>T</tt> is not a base class of the array element type of <tt>U</tt> (without regard to 
<i>cv</i>-qualifiers).</ins></p></li>
</ul>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Revise 20.7.1.3.3 [unique.ptr.runtime.modifiers] as follows:</p>

<blockquote>
<pre>
<del>void reset(pointer p = pointer()) noexcept;
void reset(nullptr_t p) noexcept;</del>
<ins>template &lt;class U&gt; void reset(U*) = delete;</ins>
</pre><blockquote><p>
<del>-1- <i>Effects</i>: If <tt>get() == nullptr</tt> there are no effects. Otherwise <tt>get_deleter()(get())</tt>.</del>
<p/>
<del>-2- <i>Postcondition</i>: <tt>get() == p</tt>.</del>
<p/>
<ins>-?- This function shall not participate in overload resolution unless:</ins>
</p>
<ul>
<li><p><ins><tt>pointer</tt> is a pointer type, and</ins></p></li>
<li><p><ins><tt>U*</tt> is implicitly convertible to <tt>pointer</tt>, and</ins></p></li>
<li><p><ins><tt>T</tt> is a base class of <tt>U</tt> (without regard to <i>cv</i>-qualifiers).</ins></p></li>
</ul>

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






<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#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2011-12-16 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</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#Open">Open</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-defects.html#2109">2109</a> in regard
to confusing requirements on user-defined types and those on implementations.
</p>


<p><i>[2012, Kona]</i></p>

<p>
Move to Open.
</p>
<p>
Agreed that it's a real issue and that the proposed wording fixes it. However, the wording
change is not minimal and isn't consistent with the way we fixed hash wording elsewhere.
</p>
<p>Alisdair will provide updated wording.
</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#Review">Review</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2012-01-01 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</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#Review">Review</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>
<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>
<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><i>[2012, Portland: move to Review]</i></p>

<p>
We could make it undefined if no launch policy is defined.
</p>
<p>
Hans: If no launch policy is specified the behaviour is undefined
</p>
<p>
Artur: or implementation defined?
</p>
<p>
Hans: no: we don't want people to do this
</p>
<p><i>[Proposed wording]</i></p>

<p>
This wording is relative to N3376
</p>
<p>
Add a third bullet to the end of the list in 30.6.8p3
</p>
<blockquote>
"if no valid launch policy is provided the behaviour is undefined"
</blockquote>
<p>
Moved to review
</p>

<p><i>[2013-04-19, Bristol]</i></p>
 

<p>Detlef provides new wording</p>

<p>Previous wording:</p>

<blockquote class="note">  
<p><i>[This wording is relative to N3376]</i></p>

<p>
Add a third bullet to the end of the list in 30.6.8 [futures.async]p3
</p>
<blockquote>
<ins>&ndash; if no valid launch policy is provided the behaviour is undefined</ins>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p><i>[This wording is relative to N3485]</i></p>

<p>
Add a third bullet to the end of the list in 30.6.8 [futures.async]p3
</p>
<blockquote>
<ins>&ndash; If no value is set in the launch policy, or a value is set that is
neither specified in this International Standard or by the implementation, the behaviour 
is undefined.</ins>
</blockquote>






<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> 2012-11-15</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="2125"></a>2125. <tt>TimedMutex</tt> specification problem</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.4.1.3 [thread.timedmutex.requirements], 30.4.1.3.1 [thread.timedmutex.class] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#NAD Editorial">Tentatively NAD Editorial</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Vicente J. Botet Escriba <b>Opened:</b> 2012-01-01 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#thread.timedmutex.requirements">issues</a> in [thread.timedmutex.requirements].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Tentatively NAD Editorial">Tentatively NAD Editorial</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
30.4.1.3.1 [thread.timedmutex.class] says:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
The class <tt>timed_mutex</tt> shall satisfy all of the <tt>TimedMutex</tt> requirements (30.4.1.3 [thread.timedmutex.requirements]). 
It shall be a standardlayout class (Clause 9 [class]).
</p></blockquote>
<p>
Problem here is that 30.4.1.3 [thread.timedmutex.requirements] does not define a requirement set named &quot;<tt>TimedMutex</tt>&quot;,
it only refers to &quot;<i>timed mutex types</i>&quot;
</p>

<p><i>[See also issue <a href="lwg-active.html#2126">2126</a>]</i></p>


<p><i>[2012, Portland: move to Tentatively NAD Editorial]</i></p>

<p>
We have timed mutex type, but it is labeled timed mutex requirements
</p>
<p>
We can make a suggestion, but will send to the editor as it seems purely editorial.
There is a typo, and we don't have the timed mutex but 30.4.1.3 [thread.timedmutex.requirements] already
says timed mutex type, and we need to reuse that term down in the class to fulfil the mutex requirement.
</p>
<p><i>[To Editor:]</i></p>

<p>
Replace this one with timed mutex type.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2126"></a>2126. Several specification problems in regard to mutex requirements</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.4.1 [thread.mutex.requirements], 30.4.1.2.1 [thread.mutex.class], 30.4.1.2 [thread.mutex.requirements.mutex], 30.4.1.2.2 [thread.mutex.recursive], 30.4.1.3 [thread.timedmutex.requirements], 30.4.1.3.1 [thread.timedmutex.class], 30.4.1.3.2 [thread.timedmutex.recursive] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#NAD Editorial">Tentatively NAD Editorial</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Pete Becker <b>Opened:</b> 2012-01-16 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#thread.mutex.requirements">issues</a> in [thread.mutex.requirements].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Tentatively NAD Editorial">Tentatively NAD Editorial</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
 30.4.1.2.1 [thread.mutex.class]&#47;3 says that the class mutex "shall satisfy all the <tt>Mutex</tt> requirements (30.4.1 [thread.mutex.requirements])". 
 30.4.1.2.1 [thread.mutex.class] is part of 30.4.1 [thread.mutex.requirements], so at the very least, this 
 requirement is recursive. But worse, there is nothing that says what "the <tt>Mutex</tt> requirements" refers to. For example, 
 the "<tt>Lockable</tt> requirements" section starts with "A type <tt>L</tt> meets the <tt>Lockable</tt> requirements if &hellip;". There is no such 
 statement for "the <tt>Mutex</tt> requirements".
<p/>
Organizationally, paragraphs 1-26 in 30.4.1.2 [thread.mutex.requirements.mutex] should probably be in a subclause with a name. 
(This is actually an ISO requirement, to avoid exactly this kind of ambiguous referencing) Then the first sentence of 
30.4.1.2.1 [thread.mutex.class]&#47;3 can become a note: "The class mutex meets the requirements of (whatever)", since that 
subclause already says that the mutex types "shall meet the requirements set out in this section."
<p/>
And similarly for 30.4.1.2.2 [thread.mutex.recursive]&#47;2 (<tt>recursive_mutex</tt>).
<p/>
30.4.1.3 [thread.timedmutex.requirements], Timed mutex types, also needs the same rearrangement: its introductory 
requirements should be moved into a subclause, and the first sentences of 30.4.1.3.1 [thread.timedmutex.class]&#47;2 
and 30.4.1.3.2 [thread.timedmutex.recursive]&#47;2 should be turned into notes that refer to this new subclause and 
to the new subclause in 30.4.1.2 [thread.mutex.requirements.mutex].
</p>

<p><i>[See also issue <a href="lwg-active.html#2125">2125</a>]</i></p>


<p><i>[2012, Portland: move to Tentatively NAD Editorial]</i></p>

<p>
Seems no real ambiguity. May need some reorg of text rather then changing the wording.
</p>
<p>
Is there much that needs to be changed? But Pete's suggestion of putting requirement in separate sub section is good.
Should be the direction to editor.
</p>
<p>
Suggest this is an editorial change. Happy with Pete's comments.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2127"></a>2127. Move-construction with <tt>raw_storage_iterator</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.6.10 [storage.iterator] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2012-01-23 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#storage.iterator">issues</a> in [storage.iterator].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Aliaksandr Valialkin pointed out that <tt>raw_storage_iterator</tt> only supports constructing 
a new object from lvalues so cannot be used to construct move-only types:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;typename InputIterator, typename T&gt;
void move_to_raw_buffer(InputIterator first, InputIterator last, T *raw_buffer)
{
  std::move(first, last, std::raw_storage_iterator&lt;T *, T&gt;(raw_buffer));
}
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
This could easily be solved by overloading <tt>operator=</tt> for rvalues.
<p/>
Dave Abrahams:
<p/>
<tt>raw_storage_iterator</tt> causes exception-safety problems when used with any
generic algorithm. I suggest leaving it alone and not encouraging its use.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to <a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3337.pdf">N3337</a>.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Add a new signature to the synopsis in 20.6.10 [storage.iterator] p1:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template &lt;class OutputIterator, class T&gt;
  class raw_storage_iterator
    : public iterator&lt;output_iterator_tag,void,void,void,void&gt; {
  public:
    explicit raw_storage_iterator(OutputIterator x);

    raw_storage_iterator&lt;OutputIterator,T&gt;&amp; operator*();
    raw_storage_iterator&lt;OutputIterator,T&gt;&amp; operator=(const T&amp; element);
    <ins>raw_storage_iterator&lt;OutputIterator,T&gt;&amp; operator=(T&amp;&amp; element);</ins>
    raw_storage_iterator&lt;OutputIterator,T&gt;&amp; operator++();
    raw_storage_iterator&lt;OutputIterator,T&gt; operator++(int);
};
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Insert the new signature and a new paragraph before p4:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
raw_storage_iterator&lt;OutputIterator,T&gt;&amp; operator=(const T&amp; element);
<ins>raw_storage_iterator&lt;OutputIterator,T&gt;&amp; operator=(T&amp;&amp; element);</ins>
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
<ins>-?- <i>Requires</i>: For the first signature <tt>T</tt> shall be <tt>CopyConstructible</tt>. For
the second signature <tt>T</tt> shall be <tt>MoveConstructible</tt>.</ins>
<p/>
-4- <i>Effects</i>: Constructs a value from <tt>element</tt> at the location to which the iterator points.
<p/>
-5- <i>Returns</i>: A reference to the iterator.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2129"></a>2129. User specializations of <tt>std::initializer_list</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 17.6.4.2.1 [namespace.std], 18.9 [support.initlist] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Richard Smith <b>Opened:</b> 2012-01-18 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#namespace.std">active issues</a> in [namespace.std].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#namespace.std">issues</a> in [namespace.std].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Since the implementation is intended to magically synthesize instances of <tt>std::initializer_list</tt> 
(rather than by a constructor call, for instance), user specializations of this type can't generally be 
made to work. I can't find any wording which makes such specializations ill-formed, though, which leads 
me to suspect that they're technically legal under the provisions of 17.6.4.2.1 [namespace.std] p1.</p>



<p><i>[2012, Kona]</i></p>

<p>
This sounds correct, but we need wording for a resultion.
</p>
<p>
Marshall Clow volunteers to produce wording.
</p>

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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2131"></a>2131. Member function getline taking a string as parameter</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> Lo&iuml;c Joly <b>Opened:</b> 2012-03-05 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#istream.unformatted">active issues</a> in [istream.unformatted].</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>
I think the following code should be legal:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
void f(std::istream&amp; is)
{
  std::string s;
  is.getline(s); // Would be equivalent to std::getline(is, s)
}
</pre></blockquote>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3376.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change the class template <tt>basic_istream</tt> synopsis, 27.7.2.1 [istream], as indicated</p>
<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  template &lt;class charT, class traits = char_traits&lt;charT&gt; &gt;
  class basic_istream : virtual public basic_ios&lt;charT,traits&gt; {
  public:
    [&hellip;]
    <i>// 27.7.2.3 Unformatted input:</i>
    [&hellip;]
    basic_istream&lt;charT,traits&gt;&amp; getline(char_type* s, streamsize n);
    basic_istream&lt;charT,traits&gt;&amp; getline(char_type* s, streamsize n,
      char_type delim);
    <ins>template&lt;class Allocator&gt;
    basic_istream&lt;charT,traits&gt;&amp; getline(basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; str);
    template&lt;class Allocator&gt;
    basic_istream&lt;charT,traits&gt;&amp; getline(basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; str,
      char_type delim);</ins>
    [&hellip;]
  };
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Insert the following two new prototype descriptions after 27.7.2.3 [istream.unformatted] paragraph 24:</p>

<blockquote>
<pre>
basic_istream&lt;charT,traits&gt;&amp; getline(char_type* s, streamsize n);
</pre>
<blockquote><p>
-24- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>getline(s,n,widen('\n'))</tt>
</p>
</blockquote>

<pre>
<ins>template&lt;class Allocator&gt;
basic_istream&lt;charT,traits&gt;&amp; getline(basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; str);</ins>
</pre>
<blockquote><p>
<ins>-??- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>std::getline(*this, str)</tt></ins>
</p>
</blockquote>

<pre>
<ins>template&lt;class Allocator&gt;
basic_istream&lt;charT,traits&gt;&amp; getline(basic_string&lt;charT,traits,Allocator&gt;&amp; str, char_type delim);</ins>
</pre>
<blockquote><p>
<ins>-??- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>std::getline(*this, str, delim)</tt></ins>
</p>
</blockquote>

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






<hr>
<h3><a name="2132"></a>2132. <tt>std::function</tt> ambiguity</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.8.11.2.1 [func.wrap.func.con] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Review">Review</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Ville Voutilainen <b>Opened:</b> 2012-02-28 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-12-25</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#func.wrap.func.con">issues</a> in [func.wrap.func.con].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Review">Review</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
Consider the following:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;functional&gt;

void f(std::function&lt;void()&gt;) {}
void f(std::function&lt;void(int)&gt;) {}

int main() {
  f([]{});
  f([](int){});
}
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
The calls to <tt>f</tt> in <tt>main</tt> are ambiguous. Apparently because the
conversion sequences to <tt>std::function</tt> from the lambdas are identical. 
The standard specifies that the function object given to <tt>std::function</tt>
"shall be <em>Callable</em> (20.8.11.2) for argument types <tt>ArgTypes</tt> and 
return type <tt>R</tt>." It doesn't say that if this is not the case, the 
constructor isn't part of the overload set.
<p/>
Daniel: During the preparation of <a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3123.html">N3123</a>
it turned out that there are no longer reasons to refer to <em>INVOKE</em> as a
conceptually entity alone, its real implementation as a function template <tt>invoke</tt>
is possible but was deferred for a later point in time. Defining a type trait for
the <em>Callable</em> requirement would also be possible, so there seem to be no technical
reasons why the template constructor of <tt>std::function</tt> should not be
constrained. The below suggested wording does this without introducing a special
trait for this. This corresponds to the way that has been used to specify the
<tt>result_of</tt> trait. Note that the definition of the <em>Callable</em>
requirement is perfectly suitable for this, because it is a pure syntactically
based requirement and can be directly transformed into a constrained template.
<p/>
The suggested resolution also applies such wording to the "perfectly forwarding"
assignment operator
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class F&gt; function&amp; operator=(F&amp;&amp;);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
The positive side-effect of this is that it automatically implements a solution to
a problem similar to that mentioned in issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#1234">1234</a>.
<p/>
It would be possible to apply similar constraints to the member signatures
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class F&gt; function&amp; operator=(reference_wrapper&lt;F&gt;);

template&lt;class F, class A&gt; void assign(F&amp;&amp;, const A&amp;);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
as well. At this point there does not seem to be a pestering reason to do so.
</p>

<p><i>[2012-10 Portland: Move to Review]</i></p>

<p>
STL: This is a real issue, but does not like a resolution relying on a SFINAEable metafunction
that is not specified and available to the users.
</p>

<p>
<tt>packaged_task</tt> has the same issue.
</p>

<p>
STL strongly wants to see an <tt>is_callable</tt> type trait to clarify the proposed wording.
</p>

<p>
Jeremiah concerned about holding up what appears to be a correct resolution for a hypothetical
better one later - the issue is real.
</p>

<p>
Why must <tt>f</tt> by CopyConstructible?  Surely MoveConstructible would be sufficient?
</p>

<p>
Answer: because <tt>function</tt> is CopyConstructible, and the bound functor is type-erased
so must support all the properties of <tt>function</tt> itself.
</p>

<p>
Replace various applications of <tt>declval</tt> in the proposed resolution with simply using
the passed functor object, <tt>f</tt>.
</p>

<p>
Alisdair to apply similar changes to <tt>packaged_task</tt>.
</p>

<p><i>[2012-11-09, Vicente J. Botet Escriba provides another example]</i></p>


<p>
Consider the following:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
class AThreadWrapper {
public:
  explicit operator std::thread();
  ...
};
std::thread th = std::thread(AThreadWrapper); // call to conversion operator intended
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
The call to the conversion operator is overloaded with the thread constructor. But thread constructor requirement 
makes it fail as <tt>AThreadWrapper</tt> is not a Callable and the compiler tries to instantiate the thread 
constructor and fails.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3376.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change the following paragraphs in 20.8.11.2.1 [func.wrap.func.con]:
[<em>Editorial comment</em>: The removal of the seemingly additional no-throw
requirements of copy constructor and destructor of <tt>A</tt> is recommended,
because they are already part of the Allocator requirements. Similar clean-up
has been suggested by <a href="lwg-active.html#2070">2070</a> &mdash; <em>end comment</em>]</p>

<blockquote>
<pre>
template&lt;class F> function(F f);
template&lt;class F, class A&gt; function(allocator_arg_t, const A&amp; a, F f);
</pre>
<blockquote>
<p>
-7- <i>Requires</i>: <tt>F</tt> shall be <tt>CopyConstructible</tt>. <del><tt>f</tt> shall be Callable 
(20.8.11.2 [func.wrap.func]) for argument types <tt>ArgTypes</tt> and return type <tt>R</tt>. 
The copy constructor and destructor of <tt>A</tt> shall not throw exceptions.</del>
<p/>
<ins>-?- <i>Remarks</i>: These constructors shall not participate in overload resolution unless
<tt>f</tt> is Callable (20.8.11.2 [func.wrap.func]) for argument types
<tt>ArgTypes...</tt> and return type <tt>R</tt>.</ins>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
[&hellip;]
</p>
<pre>
template&lt;class F> function&amp; operator=(F&amp;&amp; f);
</pre>
<blockquote>
<p>
-18- <i>Effects</i>: <tt>function(std::forward&lt;F&gt;(f)).swap(*this);</tt>
<p/>
-19- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>*this</tt>
<p/>
<ins>-?- <i>Remarks</i>: This assignment operator shall not participate in overload resolution unless
<tt>declval&lt;typename decay&lt;F&gt;::type&amp;&gt;()</tt> is Callable (20.8.11.2 [func.wrap.func]) 
for argument types <tt>ArgTypes...</tt> and return type <tt>R</tt>.</ins>
</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

</li>
</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2133"></a>2133. Attitude to overloaded comma for iterators</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 17.6.5.4 [global.functions] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Yakov Galka <b>Opened:</b> 2012-01-25 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#global.functions">issues</a> in [global.functions].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
17.6.5.4 [global.functions] says
</p>
<blockquote><p>
Unless otherwise specified, global and non-member functions in the standard library 
shall not use functions from another namespace which are found through argument-dependent 
name lookup (3.4.2).
</p></blockquote>
<p>
This sounds clear enough. There are just two problems:
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>
Both implementations I tested (VS2005 and GCC 3.4.3) do unqualified
calls to the comma operator in some parts of the library with operands
of user-defined types.
</p></li>
<li>
<p>
The standard itself does this in the description of some algorithms. E.g. <tt>uninitialized_copy</tt> 
is defined as:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Effects</i>:
</p><blockquote>
<pre>
for (; first != last; <span style="color:#C80000;font-weight:bold">++result, ++first</span>)
  ::new (static_cast&lt;void*&gt;(&amp;*result))
    typename iterator_traits&lt;ForwardIterator&gt;::value_type(*first);
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</li>
</ol>
<p>
If understood literally, it is required to call <tt>operator,(ForwardIterator, InputIterator)</tt>.
<p/>
For detailed discussion with code samples see 
<a href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8719829/should-the-implementation-guard-itself-against-comma-overloading">here</a>.
<p/>
Proposal:
</p>
<ol>
<li>
Add an exception to the rule in 17.6.5.4 [global.functions] by permitting
the implementation to call the comma operator as much as it wants to. I doubt we want this. or
</li>
<li>
Fix the description of the said algorithms and perhaps add a note to 17.6.5.4 [global.functions] 
that brings attention of the implementers to avoid this pitfall.
</li>
</ol>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Open.
</p>
<p>
There are real questions here, that may require a paper to explore and answer properly.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2134"></a>2134. Redundant Mutex requirement?</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.4.1.2 [thread.mutex.requirements.mutex] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#NAD Editorial">Tentatively NAD Editorial</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Pete Becker <b>Opened:</b> 2012-03-05 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#thread.mutex.requirements.mutex">issues</a> in [thread.mutex.requirements.mutex].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Tentatively NAD Editorial">Tentatively NAD Editorial</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
30.4.1.2 [thread.mutex.requirements.mutex]&#47;11 says that prior unlock operations <em>synchronize with</em> <tt>m.lock()</tt>.
<p/>
30.4.1.2 [thread.mutex.requirements.mutex]&#47;19 says that if <tt>m.try_lock()</tt> succeeds, prior unlock operations 
<em>synchronize with</em> the operation. 
<p/>
30.4.1.2 [thread.mutex.requirements.mutex]&#47;25 says that <tt>m.unlock()</tt> <em>synchronizes with</em> subsequent 
successful lock operations. 
<p/>
Does the third requirement add anything to the first two? If not, it should probably be a non-normative note.
</p>

<p><i>[2012, Portland: move to Tentatively NAD Editorial]</i></p>

<p>
Agree that third note should be non-normative and adds nothing.
</p>
<p>
Seems An Editorial change, but does changing a normative to non-normative wording makes it a non-editorial change?
</p>
<p>
Ask the editor. If not editorial, then we will agree on the fix as removal of the third point,
then we will put it in ready state for Bristol.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2135"></a>2135. Unclear requirement for exceptions thrown in <tt>condition_variable::wait()</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.5.1 [thread.condition.condvar], 30.5.2 [thread.condition.condvarany] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Pete Becker <b>Opened:</b> 2012-03-06 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#thread.condition.condvar">active issues</a> in [thread.condition.condvar].</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#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
<tt>condition_varible::wait()</tt> (and, presumably, <tt>condition_variable_any::wait()</tt>, although 
I haven't looked at it) says that it calls <tt>lock.unlock()</tt>, and if <tt>condition_variable::wait()</tt> 
exits by an exception it calls <tt>lock.lock()</tt> on the way out. But if the initial call to 
<tt>lock.unlock()</tt> threw an exception, does it make sense to call <tt>lock.lock()</tt>? We simply 
don't know the state of that lock object, and it's probably better not to touch it.
<p/>
That aside, once the <tt>wait()</tt> call has been unblocked, it calls <tt>lock.lock()</tt>. If <tt>lock.lock()</tt> 
throws an exception, what happens? The requirement is:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
If the function exits via an exception, <tt>lock.lock()</tt> shall be called prior to exiting the function scope.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
That can be read in two different ways. One way is as if it said "<tt>lock.lock()</tt> shall have been called ", 
i.e. the original, failed, call to <tt>lock.lock()</tt> is all that's required. But a more natural reading is 
that wait has to call <tt>lock.lock()</tt> again, even though it already failed.
<p/>
I think this wording suffers from being too general. There are two possible exception sources: the initial call 
to <tt>lock.unlock()</tt> and the final call to <tt>lock.lock()</tt>. Each one should have its own requirement. 
Lumping them together muddles things.
</p>

<p><i>[2012, Portland: move to Open]</i></p>

<p>
Pablo: <tt>unlock</tt> failing is easy -- the call leaves it locked.
       The second case, trying to <tt>lock</tt> fails -- what can you do?
       This is an odd state as we <em>had</em> it locked before was called wait.
       Maybe we should call <tt>terminate</tt> as we cannot meet the post-conditions.
       We could throw a different exception.
</p>
<p>
Hans: calling <tt>terminate</tt> makes sense as we're likely to call it soon anyway
      and at least we have some context.
</p>
<p>
Detlef: what kind of locks might be being used?
</p>
<p>
Pablo: condition variables are 'our' locks so this is less of a problem.
       <tt>condition_variable_any</tt> might be more problematic.
</p>
<p>
The general direction is to call <tt>terminate</tt> if the lock cannot be reacquired.
</p>
<p>
Pablo: Can we change the wording to 'leaves the mutex locked' ?
</p>
<p>
Hans: so if the <tt>unlock</tt> throws we simply propagate the exception.
</p>
<p>
Move the issue to open and add some formal wording at a later time.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2136"></a>2136. Postconditions vs. exceptions</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 17.5.1 [structure] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jens Maurer <b>Opened:</b> 2012-03-08 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
The front matter in clause 17 should clarify that postconditions will not hold if a 
standard library function exits via an exception. Postconditions or guarantees that 
apply when an exception is thrown (beyond the basic guarantee) are described in an 
"Exception safety" section.
</p>

<p><i>[
2012-10 Portland: Move to Open
]</i></p>


<p>
Consensus that we do not clearly say this, and that we probably should.  A likely
location to describe the guarantees of <i>postconditions</i> could well be a new
sub-clause following 17.6.4.11 [res.on.required] which serves the same purpose
for <i>requires</i> clauses.  However, we need such wording before we can make
progress.
</p>

<p>
Also, see <a href="lwg-active.html#2137">2137</a> for a suggestion that we want to see a paper resolving
both issues together.
</p>


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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2137"></a>2137. Misleadingly constrained post-condition in the presence of exceptions</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 28.8.3 [re.regex.assign] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2012-03-08 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#re.regex.assign">issues</a> in [re.regex.assign].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
The post-conditions of <tt>basic_regex&lt;&gt;::assign</tt> 28.8.3 [re.regex.assign] p16 say:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<span style="color:#C80000;font-weight:bold">If no exception is thrown,</span> <tt>flags()</tt> returns 
<tt>f</tt> and <tt>mark_count()</tt> returns the number of marked sub-expressions within the expression.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
The default expectation in the library is that post-conditions only hold, if there is no failure 
(see also <a href="lwg-active.html#2136">2136</a>), therefore the initial condition should be removed to prevent any
misunderstanding.
</p>

<p><i>[
2012-10 Portland: Move to Open
]</i></p>


<p>
A favorable resolution clearly depends on a favorable resolution to <a href="lwg-active.html#2136">2136</a>.
There is also a concern that this is just one example of where we would want to apply
such a wording clean-up, and which is really needed to resolve both this issue and
<a href="lwg-active.html#2136">2136</a> is a paper providing the clause 17 wording that gives the guarantee
for <i>postcondition</i> paragaraphs, and then reviews clauses 18-30 to apply that
guarantee consistently.  We do not want to pick up these issues piecemeal, as we risk
openning many issues in an ongoing process.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3376.</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class string_traits, class A&gt;
  basic_regex&amp; assign(const basic_string&lt;charT, string_traits, A&gt;&amp; s,
    flag_type f = regex_constants::ECMAScript);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-15- <i>Effects</i>: Assigns the regular expression contained in the string <tt>s</tt>, interpreted according 
the flags specified in <tt>f</tt>. If an exception is thrown, <tt>*this</tt> is unchanged.
<p/>
-16- <i>Postconditions</i>: <del>If no exception is thrown,</del> <tt>flags()</tt> returns <tt>f</tt> and 
<tt>mark_count()</tt> returns the number of marked sub-expressions within the expression.
</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2139"></a>2139. What is a <em>user-defined</em> type?</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 17.6.4.2.1 [namespace.std], 19.5 [syserr], 20.6.7.1 [allocator.uses.trait], 20.8.9.1.1 [func.bind.isbind], X [func.bind.isplace], 20.8.12 [unord.hash], 20.9.7.6 [meta.trans.other], 22.3.1 [locale], 22.4.1.4 [locale.codecvt], 28.12.1.4 [re.regiter.incr] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Deferred">Deferred</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Lo&iuml;c Joly <b>Opened:</b> 2012-03-08 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#namespace.std">active issues</a> in [namespace.std].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#namespace.std">issues</a> in [namespace.std].</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 expression "user-defined type" is used in several places in the standard, but I'm not sure what 
it means. More specifically, is a type defined in the standard library a user-defined type?
<p/>
From my understanding of English, it is not. From most of the uses of this term in the standard, it 
seem to be considered as user defined. In some places, I'm hesitant, e.g. 17.6.4.2.1 [namespace.std] p1:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
A program may add a template specialization for any standard library template to namespace <tt>std</tt> 
only if the declaration depends on a user-defined type and the specialization meets the standard library 
requirements for the original template and is not explicitly prohibited.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
Does it mean we are allowed to add in the namespace <tt>std</tt> a specialization for 
<tt>std::vector&lt;std::pair&lt;T, U&gt;&gt;</tt>, for instance?
<p/>
Additional remarks from the reflector discussion: The traditional meaning of user-defined types refers
to class types and enum types, but the library actually means here user-defined types that are not
(purely) library-provided. Presumably a new term - like <em>user-provided type</em> - should be introduced
and properly defined.
</p>

<p><i>[
2012-10 Portland: Move to Deferred 
]</i></p>


<p>
The issue is real, in that we never define this term and rely on a "know it when I see it"
intuition.  However, there is a fear that any attempt to pin down a definition is more
likely to introduce bugs than solve them - getting the wording for this precisely correct
is likely far more work than we are able to give it.
</p>

<p>
There is unease at simple closing as NAD, but not real enthusiasm to provide wording either.
Move to Deferred as we are not opposed to some motivated individual coming back with full
wording to review, but do not want to go out of our way to encourage someone to work on this
in preference to other issues.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2141"></a>2141. <tt>common_type</tt> trait produces reference types</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.9.7.6 [meta.trans.other] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Doug Gregor <b>Opened:</b> 2012-03-11 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#meta.trans.other">issues</a> in [meta.trans.other].</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 type computation of the <tt>common_type</tt> type trait is defined as
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class T, class U&gt;
 struct common_type&lt;T, U&gt; {
   typedef decltype(true ? declval&lt;T&gt;() : declval&lt;U&gt;()) type;
 };
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
This means that <tt>common_type&lt;int, int&gt;::type</tt> is <tt>int&amp;&amp;</tt>, because
</p>
<ul>
<li><tt>declval&lt;int&gt;()</tt> returns <tt>int&amp;&amp;</tt></li>
<li>The conditional operator returns an xvalue when its second and third operands have the same type 
and are both xvalues (5.16 [expr.cond] p4)</li>
<li><tt>decltype</tt> returns <tt>T&amp;&amp;</tt> when its expression is an xvalue (7.1.6.2 [dcl.type.simple] p4)</li>
</ul>
<p>
Users of <tt>common_type</tt> do not expect to get a reference type as the result; the expectation is that 
<tt>common_type</tt> will return a non-reference type to which all of the types can be converted.
<p/>
Daniel: In addition to that it should be noted that without such a fix the definition of <tt>std::unique_ptr</tt>'s
<tt>operator&lt;</tt> in 20.7.1.4 [unique.ptr.special] (around p4) is also broken: In the most typical case 
(with default deleter), the determination of the common pointer type <em>CT</em> will instantiate 
<tt>std::less&lt;<em>CT</em>&gt;</tt> which can now be <tt>std::less&lt;T*&amp;&amp;&gt;</tt>, which will
<em>not</em> be the specialization of pointer types that guarantess a total order.
<p/>
Given the historic constext of <tt>common_type</tt> original specification, the proper resolution to me
seems to be using <tt>std::decay</tt> instead of <tt>std::remove_reference</tt>: 
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class T, class U&gt;
struct common_type&lt;T, U&gt; {
  typedef <ins>typename decay&lt;</ins>decltype(true ? declval&lt;T&gt;() : declval&lt;U&gt;())<ins>&gt;::type</ins> type;
};
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
At that time rvalues had no identity in this construct and rvalues of non-class types have no cv-qualification.
With this change we would ensure that
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
common_type&lt;int, int&gt;::type == common_type&lt;const int, const int&gt;::type == int
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
Note that this harmonizes with the corresponding heterogenous case, which has already the exact same effect:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
common_type&lt;int, long&gt;::type == common_type&lt;const int, const long&gt;::type == long
</pre></blockquote>

<p><i>[2012-10-11 Daniel comments]</i></p>

<p>
While testing the effects of applying the proposed resolution I noticed that this will have the effect that the unary 
form of <tt>common_type</tt>, like
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
common_type&lt;int&gt;
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
is not symmetric to the n-ary form (n &gt; 1). This is unfortunate, because this difference comes especially to effect when 
<tt>common_type</tt> is used with variadic templates. As an example consider the following <tt>make_array</tt> template:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;array>
#include &lt;type_traits>
#include &lt;utility>

template&lt;class... Args&gt;
std::array&lt;typename std::common_type&lt;Args...&gt;::type, sizeof...(Args)&gt;
make_array(Args&amp;&amp;... args)
{
  typedef typename std::common_type&lt;Args...&gt;::type CT;
  return std::array&lt;CT, sizeof...(Args)&gt;{static_cast&lt;CT&gt;(std::forward&lt;Args&gt;(args))...};
}

int main()
{
  auto a1 = make_array(0); // OK: std::array&lt;int, 1&gt;
  auto a2 = make_array(0, 1.2); // OK: std::array&lt;double, 2&gt;
  auto a3 = make_array(5, true, 3.1415f, 'c'); // OK: std::array&lt;float, 4&gt;

  int i = 0;
  auto a1b = make_array(i); // <span style="color:#C80000;font-weight:bold">Error, attempt to form std::array&lt;int&amp;, 1&gt;</span>

  auto a2b = make_array(i, 1.2); // OK: std::array&lt;double, 2&gt;
  auto a2c = make_array(i, 0); // OK: std::array&lt;int, 2&gt;
}
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
The error for <tt>a1b</tt> <em>only</em> happens in the unary case and it is easy that it remains unnoticed
during tests. You cannot explain that reasonably to the user here.
<p/>
Of-course it is possible to fix that in this example by applying <tt>std::decay</tt> to the result of the 
<tt>std::common_type</tt> deduction. But if this is necessary here, I wonder why it should also be applied to 
the binary case, where it gives the wrong illusion of a complete type decay? The other way around: Why is 
<tt>std::decay</tt> not also applied to the unary case as well?
<p/>
This problem is not completely new and was already observed for the original <tt>std::common_type</tt> specification. 
At this time the <tt>decltype</tt> rules had a similar asymmetric effect when comparing
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<tt>std::common_type&lt;const int, const int&gt;::type</tt> (equal to '<tt>int</tt>' at this time)
</p></blockquote>
<p>
with:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<tt>std::common_type&lt;const int&gt;::type</tt> (equal to '<tt>const int</tt>')
</p></blockquote>
<p>
and I wondered whether the unary form shouldn't also perform the same "decay" as the n-ary form.
<p/>
This problem makes me think that the current resolution proposal might not be ideal and I expect
differences in implementations (for those who consider to apply this proposed resolution already). I
see at least three reasonable options:
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Accept the current wording suggestion for LWG 2141 as it is and explain that to users.</p></li>
<li><p>Keep <tt>std::common_type</tt> as currently specified in the Standard and tell users to use
<tt>std::decay</tt> where needed. Also fix other places in the library, e.g. the comparison
functions of <tt>std::unique_ptr</tt> or a most of the time library functions.</p></li>
<li><p>Apply <tt>std::decay</tt> also in the unary specialization of <tt>std::common_type</tt> with
the effect that <tt>std::common_type&lt;const int&amp;&gt;::type</tt> returns <tt>int</tt>.</p></li>
</ol>

<p><i>[2012-10-11 Marc Glisse comments]</i></p>

<p>
If we are going with decay everywhere, I wonder whether we should also decay in the 2-argument version <em>before</em> 
and not only <em>after</em>. So if I specialize <tt>common_type&lt;mytype, double&gt;</tt>, 
<tt>common_type&lt;const mytype, volatile double&amp;&gt;</tt> would automatically work.
</p>

<p><i>[2012-10-11 Daniel provides wording for bullet 3 of his list:]</i></p>


<ol style="list-style-type:upper-alpha">
<li><p>Change 20.9.7.6 [meta.trans.other] p3 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class T&gt;
struct common_type&lt;T&gt; {
  typedef <ins>typename decay&lt;</ins>T<ins>&gt;::type</ins> type;
};

template &lt;class T, class U&gt;
struct common_type&lt;T, U&gt; {
  typedef <ins>typename decay&lt;</ins>decltype(true ? declval&lt;T&gt;() : declval&lt;U&gt;())<ins>&gt;::type</ins> type;
};
</pre></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Review.
</p>
<p>
Want to carefully consider the effect of <tt>decay</tt> vs. <tt>remove_reference</tt> with respect
to constenss before adopting, although this proposed resolution stands for review in Bristol.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-04-18, Bristol meeting]</i></p>


<p>Previous wording:</p>

<blockquote class="note"> 
<p>This wording is relative to N3376.</p>

<ol><li><p>In 20.9.7.6 [meta.trans.other] p3, change the <tt>common_type</tt> definition to</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class T, class U&gt;
struct common_type&lt;T, U&gt; {
  typedef <ins>typename decay&lt;</ins>decltype(true ? declval&lt;T&gt;() : declval&lt;U&gt;())<ins>&gt;::type</ins> type;
};
</pre></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>

<p><i>[2013-04-18, Bristol]</i></p>




<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3485.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change 20.9.7.6 [meta.trans.other] p3 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class T&gt;
struct common_type&lt;T&gt; {
  typedef <ins>typename decay&lt;</ins>T<ins>&gt;::type</ins> type;
};

template &lt;class T, class U&gt;
struct common_type&lt;T, U&gt; {
  typedef <ins>typename decay&lt;</ins>decltype(true ? declval&lt;T&gt;() : declval&lt;U&gt;())<ins>&gt;::type</ins> type;
};
</pre></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2142"></a>2142. <tt>packaged_task::operator()</tt> synchronization too broad?</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.6.9.1 [futures.task.members] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Pete Becker <b>Opened:</b> 2012-03-12 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#futures.task.members">active issues</a> in [futures.task.members].</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#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
According to 30.6.9.1 [futures.task.members] p.18:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
[A] successful call to [<tt>packaged_task::</tt>]<tt>operator()</tt> <em>synchronizes with</em> 
a call to any member function of a <tt>future</tt> or <tt>shared_future</tt> object that shares 
the shared state of <tt>*this</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
This requires that the call to <tt>operator()</tt> synchronizes with calls to <tt>future::wait_for</tt>, 
<tt>future::wait_until</tt>, <tt>shared_future::wait_for</tt>, and <tt>shared_future::wait_until</tt>, 
even when these functions return because of a timeout.
</p>

<p><i>[2012, Portland: move to Open]</i></p>

<p>
If it said "a successful return from" (or "a return from" to cover exceptions) the problem would be more obvious.
</p>
<p>
Detlef: will ask Anthony Williams to draft some wording.
</p>
<p>
Moved to open (Anthony drafted to draft)
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2143"></a>2143. <tt>ios_base::xalloc</tt> should be thread-safe</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 27.5.3 [ios.base] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Alberto Ganesh Barbati <b>Opened:</b> 2012-03-14 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#ios.base">issues</a> in [ios.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>
The static function <tt>ios_base::xalloc()</tt> could be called from multiple threads and is not covered by 
17.6.4.10 [res.on.objects] and 17.6.5.9 [res.on.data.races]. Adding a thread-safety requirement 
should not impose a significant burden on implementations, as the function can be easily implemented with 
hopefully lock-free atomics.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3376.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>In 27.5.3.5 [ios.base.storage] add a new paragraph after paragraph 1:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
static int xalloc();
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-1- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>index ++</tt>.
<p/>
<ins>-?- <i>Remarks</i>: Concurrent access to this function by multiple threads shall not result in a data 
race (1.10 [intro.multithread]).</ins>
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2146"></a>2146. Are reference types <tt>Copy</tt>&#47;<tt>Move-Constructible</tt>&#47;<tt>Assignable</tt> or <tt>Destructible</tt>?</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 17.6.3.1 [utility.arg.requirements] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Nikolay Ivchenkov <b>Opened:</b> 2012-03-23 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#utility.arg.requirements">active issues</a> in [utility.arg.requirements].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#utility.arg.requirements">issues</a> in [utility.arg.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>
According to 17.6.3.1 [utility.arg.requirements] p1
</p>
<blockquote><p>
The template definitions in the C++ standard library refer to various named requirements whose details are set out in 
tables 1724. In these tables, <tt>T</tt> is an object or reference type to be supplied by a C++ program instantiating 
a template; <tt>a</tt>, <tt>b</tt>, and <tt>c</tt> are values of type (possibly <tt>const</tt>) <tt>T</tt>; <tt>s</tt> 
and <tt>t</tt> are modifiable lvalues of type <tt>T</tt>; <tt>u</tt> denotes an identifier; <tt>rv</tt> is an rvalue of 
type <tt>T</tt>; and <tt>v</tt> is an lvalue of type (possibly <tt>const</tt>) <tt>T</tt> or an rvalue of type <tt>const T</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
Is it really intended that <tt>T</tt> may be a reference type? If so, what should <tt>a</tt>, <tt>b</tt>, <tt>c</tt>, 
<tt>s</tt>, <tt>t</tt>, <tt>u</tt>, <tt>rv</tt>, and <tt>v</tt> mean? For example, are "<tt>int &amp;</tt>" and 
"<tt>int &amp;&amp;</tt>" <tt>MoveConstructible</tt>?
<p/>
As far as I understand, we can explicitly specify template arguments for <tt>std::swap</tt> and <tt>std::for_each</tt>. 
Can we use reference types there?
</p>
<ol>
<li>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;iostream&gt;
#include &lt;utility&gt;

int main()
{
  int x = 1;
  int y = 2;
  std::swap&lt;<span style="color:#C80000;font-weight:bold">int &amp;&amp;</span>&gt;(x, y); // <em>undefined?</em>
  std::cout &lt;&lt; x &lt;&lt; " " &lt;&lt; y &lt;&lt; std::endl;
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;algorithm&gt;
#include &lt;iostream&gt;
#include &lt;iterator&gt;
#include &lt;utility&gt;

struct F
{
  void operator()(int n)
  {
    std::cout &lt;&lt; n &lt;&lt; std::endl;
    ++count;
  }
  int count;
} f;

int main()
{
  int arr[] = { 1, 2, 3 };
  auto&amp;&amp; result = std::for_each&lt;int *, <span style="color:#C80000;font-weight:bold">F &amp;&amp;</span>&gt;( // <em>undefined?</em>
    std::begin(arr),
    std::end(arr),
    std::move(f));
  std::cout &lt;&lt; "count: " &lt;&lt; result.count &lt;&lt; std::endl;
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>
<p>
Are these forms of usage well-defined?
<p/>
Let's also consider the following constructor of <tt>std::thread</tt>:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class F, class ...Args&gt;
explicit thread(F&amp;&amp; f, Args&amp;&amp;... args);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
<i>Requires</i>: <tt>F</tt> and each <tt>Ti</tt> in <tt>Args</tt> shall satisfy the <tt>MoveConstructible</tt> requirements.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<p>
When the first argument of this constructor is an lvalue (e.g. a name of a global function), template argument for <tt>F</tt> 
is deduced to be lvalue reference type. What should "<tt>MoveConstructible</tt>" mean with regard to an lvalue reference 
type? Maybe the wording should say that <tt>std::decay&lt;F&gt;::type</tt> and each <tt>std::decay&lt;Ti&gt;::type</tt> (where 
<tt>Ti</tt> is an arbitrary item in <tt>Args</tt>) shall satisfy the <tt>MoveConstructible</tt> requirements?
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Open.
</p>
<p>
The questions raised by the issue are real, and should have a clear answer.
</p>



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






<hr>
<h3><a name="2150"></a>2150. Unclear specification of <tt>find_end</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 25.2.6 [alg.find.end] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Andrew Koenig <b>Opened:</b> 2012-03-28 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
25.2.6 [alg.find.end] describes the behavior of find_end as returning:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
The last iterator <tt>i</tt> in the range <tt>[first1,last1 - (last2 - first2))</tt> such that for any 
nonnegative integer <tt>n &lt; (last2 - first2)</tt>, the following corresponding conditions hold: 
<tt>*(i + n) == *(first2 + n), pred(*(i + n), *(first2 + n)) != false</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
Does "for any" here mean "for every" or "there exists a"?  I think it means the former, but it could be 
interpreted either way.
<p/>
Daniel: The same problem exists for the following specifications from Clause 25 [algorithms]:
</p>
<ol>
<li>25.2.13 [alg.search] p2 and p6</li>
<li>25.3.10 [alg.reverse] p4</li>
<li>25.3.13 [alg.partitions] p5 and p9</li>
<li>25.4 [alg.sorting] p5</li>
<li>25.4.2 [alg.nth.element] p1</li>
<li>25.4.3.1 [lower.bound] p2</li>
<li>25.4.3.2 [upper.bound] p2</li>
<li>25.4.7 [alg.min.max] p21 and p23</li>
</ol>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3376.</p>

<ol>
<li>
<p>Change 25.2.6 [alg.find.end] p2 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class ForwardIterator1, class ForwardIterator2&gt;
ForwardIterator1 
find_end(ForwardIterator1 first1, ForwardIterator1 last1,
         ForwardIterator2 first2, ForwardIterator2 last2);
template&lt;class ForwardIterator1, class ForwardIterator2,
         class BinaryPredicate&gt;
ForwardIterator1
find_end(ForwardIterator1 first1, ForwardIterator1 last1,
         ForwardIterator2 first2, ForwardIterator2 last2,
         BinaryPredicate pred);
</pre><blockquote><p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-2- <i>Returns</i>: The last iterator <tt>i</tt> in the range <tt>[first1,last1 - (last2 - first2))</tt> such 
that for <del>any</del><ins>every</ins> nonnegative integer <tt>n &lt; (last2 - first2)</tt>, the following 
corresponding conditions hold: <tt>*(i + n) == *(first2 + n), pred(*(i + n), *(first2 + n)) != false</tt>.
Returns <tt>last1</tt> if <tt>[first2,last2)</tt> is empty or if no such iterator is found.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li>
<p>Change 25.2.13 [alg.search] p2 and p6 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class ForwardIterator1, class ForwardIterator2&gt;
ForwardIterator1
search(ForwardIterator1 first1, ForwardIterator1 last1,
       ForwardIterator2 first2, ForwardIterator2 last2);
template&lt;class ForwardIterator1, class ForwardIterator2,
         class BinaryPredicate&gt;
ForwardIterator1
search(ForwardIterator1 first1, ForwardIterator1 last1,
       ForwardIterator2 first2, ForwardIterator2 last2,
       BinaryPredicate pred);
</pre><blockquote><p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-2- <i>Returns</i>: The first iterator <tt>i</tt> in the range <tt>[first1,last1 - (last2-first2))</tt> 
such that for <del>any</del><ins>every</ins> nonnegative integer <tt>n</tt> less than <tt>last2 - first2</tt> 
the following corresponding conditions hold: <tt>*(i + n) == *(first2 + n), pred(*(i + n), *(first2 + n)) != false</tt>. 
Returns <tt>first1</tt> if <tt>[first2,last2)</tt> is empty, otherwise returns <tt>last1</tt> if no such iterator 
is found.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
<p>
[&hellip;]
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class ForwardIterator, class Size, class T&gt;
ForwardIterator
search_n(ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last, Size count,
         const T&amp; value);
template&lt;class ForwardIterator, class Size, class T,
         class BinaryPredicate&gt;
ForwardIterator
search_n(ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last, Size count,
         const T&amp; value, BinaryPredicate pred);
</pre><blockquote><p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-6- <i>Returns</i>: The first iterator <tt>i</tt> in the range <tt>[first,last-count)</tt> such that 
for <del>any</del><ins>every</ins> non-negative integer <tt>n</tt> less than <tt>count</tt> the following 
corresponding conditions hold: <tt>*(i + n) == value, pred(*(i + n),value) != false</tt>. Returns <tt>last</tt> 
if no such iterator is found.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li>
<p>Change 25.3.10 [alg.reverse] p4 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class BidirectionalIterator, class OutputIterator&gt;
OutputIterator
reverse_copy(BidirectionalIterator first,
             BidirectionalIterator last, OutputIterator result);
</pre><blockquote><p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-4- <i>Effects</i>: Copies the range <tt>[first,last)</tt> to the range <tt>[result,result+(last-first))</tt> 
such that for <del>any</del><ins>every</ins> non-negative integer <tt>i &lt; (last - first)</tt> the following 
assignment takes place: <tt>*(result + (last - first) - i) = *(first + i)</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li>
<p>Change 25.3.13 [alg.partitions] p5 and p9 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class ForwardIterator, class Predicate&gt;
ForwardIterator
partition(ForwardIterator first,
          ForwardIterator last, Predicate pred);
</pre><blockquote><p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-5- <i>Returns</i>: An iterator <tt>i</tt> such that for <del>any</del><ins>every</ins> iterator <tt>j</tt> 
in the range <tt>[first,i) pred(*j) != false</tt>, and for <del>any</del><ins>every</ins> iterator <tt>k</tt> 
in the range <tt>[i,last), pred(*k) == false</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
<p>
[&hellip;]
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class BidirectionalIterator, class Predicate&gt;
BidirectionalIterator
stable_partition(BidirectionalIterator first,
                 BidirectionalIterator last, Predicate pred);
</pre><blockquote><p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-9- <i>Returns</i>: An iterator <tt>i</tt> such that for <del>any</del><ins>every</ins> iterator <tt>j</tt> 
in the range <tt>[first,i), pred(*j) != false</tt>, and for <del>any</del><ins>every</ins> iterator <tt>k</tt> 
in the range <tt>[i,last), pred(*k) == false</tt>. The relative order of the elements in both groups is preserved.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li>
<p>Change 25.4 [alg.sorting] p5 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><p>
-5- A sequence is sorted with respect to a comparator <tt>comp</tt> if for <del>any</del><ins>every</ins> iterator 
<tt>i</tt> pointing to the sequence and <del>any</del><ins>every</ins> non-negative integer <tt>n</tt> such that 
<tt>i + n</tt> is a valid iterator pointing to an element of the sequence, <tt>comp(*(i + n), *i) == false</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
</li>

<li>
<p>Change 25.4.2 [alg.nth.element] p1 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class RandomAccessIterator&gt;
void nth_element(RandomAccessIterator first, RandomAccessIterator nth,
                 RandomAccessIterator last);
template&lt;class RandomAccessIterator, class Compare&gt;
void nth_element(RandomAccessIterator first, RandomAccessIterator nth,
                 RandomAccessIterator last, Compare comp);
</pre><blockquote><p>
-1- After <tt>nth_element</tt> the element in the position pointed to by <tt>nth</tt> is the element that would 
be in that position if the whole range were sorted. Also for <del>any</del><ins>every</ins> iterator <tt>i</tt> 
in the range <tt>[first,nth)</tt> and <del>any</del><ins>every</ins> iterator <tt>j</tt> in the range 
<tt>[nth,last)</tt> it holds that: <tt>!(*i &gt; *j)</tt> or <tt>comp(*j, *i) == false</tt>. 
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li>
<p>Change 25.4.3.1 [lower.bound] p2 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;lass ForwardIterator, class T&gt;
ForwardIterator
lower_bound(ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last,
            const T&amp; value);
template&lt;class ForwardIterator, class T, class Compare&gt;
ForwardIterator
lower_bound(ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last,
            const T&amp; value, Compare comp);
</pre><blockquote><p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-2- <i>Returns</i>: The furthermost iterator <tt>i</tt> in the range <tt>[first,last]</tt> such that for 
<del>any</del><ins>every</ins> iterator <tt>j</tt> in the range <tt>[first,i)</tt> the following corresponding 
conditions hold: <tt>*j &lt; value</tt> or <tt>comp(*j, value) != false</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li>
<p>Change 25.4.3.2 [upper.bound] p2 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;lass ForwardIterator, class T&gt;
ForwardIterator
upper_bound(ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last,
            const T&amp; value);
template&lt;class ForwardIterator, class T, class Compare&gt;
ForwardIterator
upper_bound(ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last,
            const T&amp; value, Compare comp);
</pre><blockquote><p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-2- <i>Returns</i>: The furthermost iterator <tt>i</tt> in the range <tt>[first,last]</tt> such that for 
<del>any</del><ins>every</ins> iterator <tt>j</tt> in the range <tt>[first,i)</tt> the following corresponding 
conditions hold: <tt>!(value &lt; *j)</tt> or <tt>comp(value, *j) == false</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li>
<p>Change 25.4.7 [alg.min.max] p21 and p23 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class ForwardIterator&gt;
ForwardIterator min_element(ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last);
template&lt;class ForwardIterator, class Compare&gt;
ForwardIterator min_element(ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last,
                            Compare comp);
</pre><blockquote><p>
-21- <i>Returns</i>: The first iterator <tt>i</tt> in the range <tt>[first,last)</tt> such that for 
<del>any</del><ins>every</ins> iterator <tt>j</tt> in the range <tt>[first,last)</tt> the following 
corresponding conditions hold: <tt>!(*j &lt; *i)</tt> or <tt>comp(*j, *i) == false</tt>. Returns 
<tt>last</tt> if <tt>first == last</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
<p>
[&hellip;]
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class ForwardIterator&gt;
ForwardIterator max_element(ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last);
template&lt;class ForwardIterator, class Compare&gt;
ForwardIterator max_element(ForwardIterator first, ForwardIterator last,
                            Compare comp);
</pre><blockquote><p>
-23- <i>Returns</i>: The first iterator <tt>i</tt> in the range <tt>[first,last)</tt> such that for 
<del>any</del><ins>every</ins> iterator <tt>j</tt> in the range <tt>[first,last)</tt> the following 
corresponding conditions hold: <tt>!(*i &lt; *j)</tt> or <tt>comp(*i, *j) == false</tt>. Returns 
<tt>last</tt> if <tt>first == last</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2151"></a>2151. <tt>basic_string&lt;&gt;::swap</tt> semantics ignore allocators</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 21.4.1 [string.require] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Robert Shearer <b>Opened:</b> 2012-04-13 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#string.require">active issues</a> in [string.require].</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>
In C++11, <tt>basic_string</tt> is not described as a "container", and is not governed by the allocator-aware 
container semantics described in sub-clause 23.2 [container.requirements]; as a result, and 
requirements or contracts for the <tt>basic_string</tt> interface must be documented in Clause 
21 [strings].
<p/>
Sub-clause 21.4.6.8 [string::swap] defines the <tt>swap</tt> member function with no requirements, and
with guarantees to execute in constant time without throwing. Fulfilling such a contract is not reasonable 
in the presence of unequal non-propagating allocators.
<p/>
In contrast, 23.2.1 [container.requirements.general] p7 declares the behavior of member <tt>swap</tt> 
for containers with unequal non-propagating allocators to be undefined.
<p/>
Resolution proposal:
<p/>
Additional language from Clause 23 [containers] should probably be copied to Clause 
21 [strings]. I will refrain from an exactly recommendation, however, as I am raising further
issues related to the language in Clause 23 [containers].
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Open.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair has offered to provide wording.
</p>
<p>
Telecon notes that 23.2.1 [container.requirements.general]p13 says that <tt>string</tt> is an
allocator-aware container.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2152"></a>2152. Instances of standard container types are not swappable</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 17.6.3.2 [swappable.requirements], 23.2.1 [container.requirements.general] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Robert Shearer <b>Opened:</b> 2012-04-13 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#swappable.requirements">issues</a> in [swappable.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>
Sub-clause 17.6.3.2 [swappable.requirements] defines two notions of swappability: a binary version defining
when two objects are <em>swappable with</em> one another, and a unary notion defining whether an object is 
<em>swappable</em> (without qualification), with the latter definition requiring that the object satisfy the 
former with respect to all values of the same type.
<p/>
Let <tt>T</tt> be a container type based on a non-propagating allocator whose instances do not necessarily 
compare equal. Then sub-clause 23.2.1 [container.requirements.general] p7 implies that no object <tt>t</tt> 
of type <tt>T</tt> is swappable (by the unary definition).
<p/>
Throughout the standard it is the unary definition of "swappable" that is listed as a requirement (with the 
exceptions of 20.2.2 [utility.swap] p4, 20.3.2 [pairs.pair] p31, 20.4.2.3 [tuple.swap] p2, 
25.3.3 [alg.swap] p2, and 25.3.3 [alg.swap] p6, which use the binary definition). This renders 
many of the mutating sequence algorithms of sub-clause 25.3 [alg.modifying.operations], for example, 
inapplicable to sequences of standard container types, even where every element of the sequence is swappable 
with every other.
<p/>
Note that this concern extends beyond standard containers to all future allocator-based types.
<p/>
Resolution proposal:
<p/>
I see two distinct straightforward solutions:
</p>
<ol style="list-style-type:lower-roman">
<li>Modify the requirements of algorithms from sub-clause 25.3 [alg.modifying.operations], and all other
places that reference the unary "swappable" definition, to instead use the binary "swappable with" definition 
(over a domain appropriate to the context). The unary definition of "swappable" could then be removed from the 
standard.
</li>
<li>Modify sub-clause 23.2.1 [container.requirements.general] such that objects of standard container types 
are "swappable" by the unary definition.
</li>
</ol>
<p>
I favor the latter solution, for reasons detailed in the following issue.
</p>

<p><i>[
2012-10 Portland: Move to Open 
]</i></p>


<p>
The issue is broader than containers with stateful allocotors, although they are the most obvious
example contained within the standard itself.  The basic problem is that once you have a stateful
allocator, that does not <tt>propagate_on_swap</tt>, then whether two objects of this type can be
swapped with well defined behavior is a run-time property (the allocators compare equal) rather
than a simple compile-time property that can be deduced from the type.  Strictly speaking, any
type where the nature of swap is a runtime property does not meet the <tt>swappable</tt>
requirements of C++11, although typical sequences of such types are going to have elements that
are all <tt>swappable with</tt> any other element in the sequence (using our other term of art
for specifying requirements) as the common case is a container of elements who all share the
same allocator.
</p>

<p>
The heart of the problem is that the <tt>swappable</tt> requirments demand that any two objects
of the same type be <tt>swappable with</tt> each other, so if any two such objects would not
be <tt>swappable with</tt> each other, then the whole type is never <tt>swappable</tt>.  Many
algorithms in clause 25 are specified in terms of <tt>swappable</tt> which is essentially an
overspecification as all they actually need is that any element in the sequence is <tt>swappable
with</tt> any other element in the sequence.
</p>

<p>
At this point Howard joins the discussion and points out that the intent of introducing the
two swap-related terms was to support <tt>vector&lt;bool&gt;::reference</tt> types, and we are
reading something into the wording that was never intended.  Consuses is that regardless of
the intent, that is what the words today say.
</p>

<p>
There is some support to see a paper reviewing the whole of clause 25 for this issue, and
other select clauses as may be necessary.
</p>

<p>
There was some consideration to introducing a note into the front of clause 25 to indicate
<tt>swappable</tt> requirements in the clause should be interpreted to allow such awkward
types, but ultimately no real enthusiasm for introducing a <tt>swappable for clause 25</tt>
requirement term, especially if it confusingly had the same name as a term used with a
subtly different meaning through the rest of the standard.
</p>

<p>
There was no enthusiasm for the alternate resolution of requiring containers with unequal
allocators that do not propagate provide a well-defined swap behavior, as it is not
believed to be possible without giving <tt>swap</tt> linear complexity for such values,
and even then would require adding the constraint that the container element types are
CopyConstructible.
</p>

<p>
Final conclusion: move to open pending a paper from a party with a strong interest in
stateful allocators.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2153"></a>2153. Narrowing of the non-member <tt>swap</tt> contract</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.2.2 [utility.swap], 17.6.3.2 [swappable.requirements], 23.2.1 [container.requirements.general] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Robert Shearer <b>Opened:</b> 2012-04-13 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Sub-clause 20.2.2 [utility.swap] defines a non-member 'swap' function with defined behavior for
all <tt>MoveConstructible</tt> and <tt>MoveAssignable</tt> types. It does not guarantee
constant-time complexity or <tt>noexcept</tt> in general, however this definition does
render all objects of <tt>MoveConstructible</tt> and <tt>MoveAssignable</tt> type swappable
(by the unary definition of sub-clause 17.6.3.2 [swappable.requirements]) in the absence of 
specializations or overloads.
<p/>
The overload of the non-member <tt>swap</tt> function defined in Table 96, however,
defines semantics incompatible with the generic non-member <tt>swap</tt> function,
since it is defined to call a member <tt>swap</tt> function whose semantics are
undefined for some values of <tt>MoveConstructible</tt> and <tt>MoveAssignable</tt> types.
<p/>
The obvious (perhaps naive) interpretation of sub-clause 17.6.3.2 [swappable.requirements] is as a guide to
the "right" semantics to provide for a non-member <tt>swap</tt> function (called in
the context defined by 17.6.3.2 [swappable.requirements] p3) in order to provide interoperable
user-defined types for generic programming. The standard container types don't follow these guidelines.
<p/>
More generally, the design in the standard represents a classic example of "contract narrowing". It 
is entirely reasonable for the contract of a particular <tt>swap</tt> overload to provide <em>more</em> 
guarantees, such as constant-time execution and <tt>noexcept</tt>, than are provided by the <tt>swap</tt> 
that is provided for any <tt>MoveConstructible</tt> and <tt>MoveAssignable</tt> types, but it is <em>not</em> 
reasonable for such an overload to fail to live up to the guarantees it provides for general types when 
it is applied to more specific types. Such an overload or specialization in generic programming is akin 
to an override of an inherited virtual function in OO programming: violating a superclass contract in a
subclass may be legal from the point of view of the language, but it is poor design and can easily lead 
to errors. While we cannot prevent user code from providing overloads that violate the more general 
<tt>swap</tt> contract, we can avoid doing so within the library itself.
<p/>
My proposed resolution is to draw a sharp distinction between member <tt>swap</tt> functions, which provide 
optimal performance but idiosyncratic contracts, and non-member <tt>swap</tt> functions, which should always 
fulfill at least the contract of 20.2.2 [utility.swap] and thus render objects swappable. The member 
<tt>swap</tt> for containers with non-propagating allocators, for example, would offer constant-time
guarantees and <tt>noexcept</tt> but would only offer defined behavior for values with allocators that compare 
equal; non-member <tt>swap</tt> would test allocator equality and then dispatch to either member <tt>swap</tt> or 
<tt>std::swap</tt> depending on the result, providing defined behavior for all values (and rendering the type
"swappable"), but offering neither the constant-time nor the <tt>noexcept</tt> guarantees.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Open.
</p>
<p>
This topic deserves more attention than can be given in the telocon, and there is no proposed resolution.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2154"></a>2154. What exactly does compile-time complexity imply?</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 26.5.1.3 [rand.req.urng] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> John Salmon <b>Opened:</b> 2012-04-26 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</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 expressions <tt>G::min()</tt> and <tt>G::max()</tt> in Table 116 in 26.5.1.3 [rand.req.urng] are specified 
as having "compile-time" complexity.
<p/>
It is not clear what, exactly, this requirement implies.  If a URNG has a method:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
static int min();
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
then is the method required to have a <tt>constexpr</tt> qualifier?  I believe the standard would benefit from 
clarification of this point.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2155"></a>2155. Macro <tt>__bool_true_false_are_defined</tt> should be removed</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 18.10 [support.runtime] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Thomas Plum <b>Opened:</b> 2012-04-30 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#support.runtime">active issues</a> in [support.runtime].</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#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Since C99, the C standard describes a macro named  <tt>__bool_true_false_are_defined</tt>.
<p/>
In the process of harmonizing C++11 with C99, this name became part of the C++ standard.
<p/>
I propose that all mention of this name should be removed from the C and C++ standards.
<p/>
Here's the problem: The name was originally proposed as a transition tool, so that the headers for a 
project could contain lines like the following.
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#if !defined(__bool_true_false_are_defined)
#define bool int /* or whatever */
#define true 1
#define false 0
#endif
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
Then when the project was compiled by a "new" compiler that implemented <tt>bool</tt> as defined by the 
evolving C++98 or C99 standards, those lines would be skipped; but when compiled by an "old" compiler that 
didn't yet provide <tt>bool</tt>, <tt>true</tt>, and <tt>false</tt>, then the <tt>#define</tt>'s would provide a
simulation that worked for most purposes.
<p/>
It turns out that there is an unfortunate ambiguity in the name.  One interpretation is as shown above, but 
a different reading says "bool, true, and false are #define'd", i.e. that the meaning of the macro is to
assert that these names are macros (not built-in) ... which is true in C, but not in C++.
<p/>
In C++11, the name appears in parentheses followed by a stray period, so
some editorial change is needed in any event:
<p/>
18.10 [support.runtime] para 1:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
Headers <tt>&lt;csetjmp&gt;</tt> (nonlocal jumps), <tt>&lt;csignal&gt;</tt> (signal handling), <tt>&lt;cstdalign&gt;</tt> 
(alignment), <tt>&lt;cstdarg&gt;</tt> (variable arguments), <tt>&lt;cstdbool&gt;</tt> (<tt>__bool_true_false_are_defined</tt>). 
<tt>&lt;cstdlib&gt;</tt> (runtime environment <tt>getenv()</tt>, <tt>system()</tt>), and <tt>&lt;ctime&gt;</tt> 
(system clock <tt>clock()</tt>, <tt>time()</tt>) provide further compatibility with C code.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
However, para 2 says
</p>
<blockquote><p>
"The contents of these headers are the same as the Standard C library headers <tt>&lt;setjmp.h&gt;</tt>, 
<tt>&lt;signal.h&gt;</tt>, <tt>&lt;stdalign.h&gt;</tt>, <tt>&lt;stdarg.h&gt;</tt>, <tt>&lt;stdbool.h&gt;</tt>, 
<tt>&lt;stdlib.h&gt;</tt>, and <tt>&lt;time.h&gt;</tt>, respectively, with the following 
changes:",
</p></blockquote>
<p>
and para 8 says 
</p>
<blockquote><p>
"The header <tt>&lt;cstdbool&gt;</tt> and the header <tt>&lt;stdbool.h&gt;</tt> shall 
not define macros named <tt>bool</tt>, <tt>true</tt>, or <tt>false</tt>."
</p></blockquote>
<p>
Thus para 8 doesn't exempt the C++ implementation from the arguably clear requirement of the C standard, to 
provide a macro named <tt>__bool_true_false_are_defined</tt> defined to be 1.
<p/>
Real implementations of the C++ library differ, so the user cannot count upon any consistency; furthermore, the 
usefulness of the transition tool has faded long ago.
<p/>
That's why my suggestion is that both C and C++ standards should eliminate any mention of 
<tt>__bool_true_false_are_defined</tt>.  In that case, the name belongs to implementers to provide, or not, as 
they choose.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Open.
</p>
<p>
While not strictly necessary, the clean-up look good.
</p>
<p>
We would like to hear from our C liaison before moving on this issue though.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2156"></a>2156. Unordered containers' <tt>reserve(n)</tt> reserves for <tt>n-1</tt> elements</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.2.5 [unord.req] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel James <b>Opened:</b> 2012-05-07 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#unord.req">active issues</a> in [unord.req].</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#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
I think that unordered containers' <tt>reserve</tt> doesn't quite do what it should. I'd expect after calling 
<tt>x.reserve(n)</tt> to be able to insert <tt>n</tt> elements without invalidating iterators. But as 
the standard is written (I'm looking at n3376), I think the guarantee only holds for <tt>n-1</tt> elements.
<p/>
For a container with <tt>max_load_factor</tt> of <tt>1</tt>, <tt>reserve(n)</tt> is equivalent to
<tt>rehash(ceil(n/1))</tt>, ie. <tt>rehash(n)</tt>. <tt>rehash(n)</tt> requires that the bucket
count is <tt>&gt;= n</tt>, so it can be <tt>n</tt> (Table 103). The rule is that <tt>insert</tt>
shall not affect the validity of iterators if <tt>(N + n) &lt; z * B</tt> (23.2.5 [unord.req] p15). 
But for this case the two sides of the equation are equal, so <tt>insert</tt> can affect the validity of iterators.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-16 Howard comments and provides wording]</i></p>


<p>
Given the following:
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
LF := load_factor()
MLF := max_load_factor()
S := size()
B := bucket_count()

LF == S/B
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
The container has an invariant:
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
LF &lt;= MLF
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
Therefore:
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
MLF &gt;= S/B
S &lt;= MLF * B
B &gt;= S/MLF
</pre></blockquote>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Open.
</p>
<p>
Howard to provide rationale and potentally revised wording.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3485.</p>

<ol>
<li>
<p>
In 23.2.5 [unord.req] Table 103 &mdash; Unordered associative container requirements, change the post-condition 
in the row for <code>a.rehash(n)</code> to:
</p>
<blockquote>
Post: <code>a.bucket_count() &gt;<ins>=</ins> a.size() / a.max_load_factor()</code> and <code>a.bucket_count() &gt;= n</code>.
</blockquote>
</li>

<li>
<p>
In 23.2.5 [unord.req]/p15 change
</p>
<blockquote>
The <code>insert</code> and <code>emplace</code> members shall not affect the validity of iterators if 
<code>(N+n) &lt;<ins>=</ins> z * B</code>, where <code>N</code> is the number of elements in the container 
prior to the insert operation, <code>n</code> is the number of elements inserted, <code>B</code> is the containers 
bucket count, and <code>z</code> is the containers maximum load factor.
</blockquote>
</li>

</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2157"></a>2157. How does <tt>std::array&lt;T,0&gt;</tt> initialization work when <tt>T</tt> is not default-constructible?</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.3.2.8 [array.zero] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daryle Walker <b>Opened:</b> 2012-05-08 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#array.zero">issues</a> in [array.zero].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Objects of <tt>std::array&lt;T,N&gt;</tt> are supposed to be initialized with aggregate initialization (when 
not the destination of a copy or move). This clearly works when <tt>N</tt> is positive. What happens when <tt>N</tt> 
is zero?  To continue using an (inner) set of braces for initialization, a <tt>std::array&lt;T,0&gt;</tt> implementation 
must have an array member of at least one element, and let default initialization take care of those secret elements.  
This cannot work when <tt>T</tt> has a set of constructors and the default constructor is deleted from that set.
Solution: Add a new paragraph in 23.3.2.8 [array.zero]:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
The unspecified internal structure of array for this case shall allow initializations like:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
array&lt;T, 0&gt; a = { };
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
and said initializations must be valid even when <tt>T</tt> is not default-constructible.
</p></blockquote>

<p><i>[2012, Portland: Move to Open]</i></p>

<p>
Some discussion to understand the issue, which is that implementations currently have freedom to implement
an empty <tt>array</tt> by holding a dummy element, and so might not support value initialization, which is
surprising when trying to construct an empty container.  However, this is not mandated, it is an unspecified
implementation detail.
</p>

<p>
Jeffrey points out that the implication of 23.3.2.1 [array.overview] is that this initialization syntax
must be supported by empty <tt>array</tt> objects already.  This is a surprising inference that was not
obvious to the room, but consensus is that the reading is accurate, so the proposed resolution is not necessary,
although the increased clarity may be useful.
</p>

<p>
Further observation is that the same clause effectively implies that <tt>T</tt> must always be DefaultConstructible,
regardless of <tt>N</tt> for the same reasons - as an <i>initializer-list</i> may not supply enough values, and the
remaining elements must all be value initialized.
</p>

<p>
Concern that we are dancing angels on the head of pin, and that relying on such subtle implications in wording is
not helpful.  We need a clarification of the text in this area, and await wording.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3376.</p>

<p>Add the following new paragraph between the current 23.3.2.8 [array.zero] p1 and p2:</p>

<blockquote><p>
-1- <tt>array</tt> shall provide support for the special case <tt>N == 0</tt>.
<p/>
<ins>-?- The unspecified internal structure of <tt>array</tt> for this case shall allow initializations like:</ins>
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>array&lt;T, 0&gt; a = { };</ins>
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
<ins>and said initializations must be valid even when <tt>T</tt> is not default-constructible.</ins>
<p/>
-2- In the case that <tt>N == 0</tt>, <tt>begin() == end() ==</tt> unique value. The return value of 
<tt>data()</tt> is unspecified.
<p/>
-3- The effect of calling <tt>front()</tt> or <tt>back()</tt> for a zero-sized array is undefined.
<p/>
-4- Member function <tt>swap()</tt> shall have a <em>noexcept-specification</em> which is equivalent to 
<tt>noexcept(true)</tt>.
</p></blockquote>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2158"></a>2158. Conditional copy&#47;move in <tt>std::vector</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.3.6.3 [vector.capacity] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Nikolay Ivchenkov <b>Opened:</b> 2012-05-08 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</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#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
There are various operations on <tt>std::vector</tt> that can cause elements of the vector to be 
moved from one location to another. A move operation can use either rvalue or const lvalue as 
argument; the choice depends on the value of <tt>!is_nothrow_move_constructible&lt;T&gt;::value &amp;&amp;
is_copy_constructible&lt;T&gt;::value</tt>, where <tt>T</tt> is the element type. Thus, some operations 
on <tt>std::vector</tt> (e.g. 'resize' with single parameter, 'reserve', 'emplace_back') should have 
conditional requirements. For example, let's consider the requirement for 'reserve' in N3376 &ndash; 
23.3.6.3 [vector.capacity]&#47;2:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Requires</i>: <tt>T</tt> shall be <tt>MoveInsertable</tt> into <tt>*this</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
This requirement is not sufficient if an implementation is free to select copy constructor when 
<tt>!is_nothrow_move_constructible&lt;T&gt;::value &amp;&amp; is_copy_constructible&lt;T&gt;::value</tt> 
evaluates to true. Unfortunately, <tt>is_copy_constructible</tt> cannot reliably determine whether 
<tt>T</tt> is really copy-constructible. A class may contain public non-deleted copy constructor whose 
definition does not exist or cannot be instantiated successfully (e.g., 
<tt>std::vector&lt;std::unique_ptr&lt;int&gt;&gt;</tt> has copy constructor, but this type is not 
copy-constructible). Thus, the actual requirements should be:
</p>
<ul>
<li><p>
if <tt>!is_nothrow_move_constructible&lt;T&gt;::value &amp;&amp; is_copy_constructible&lt;T&gt;::value</tt> 
then <tt>T</tt> shall be <tt>CopyInsertable</tt> into <tt>*this</tt>;
</p></li>
<li><p>
otherwise <tt>T</tt> shall be <tt>MoveInsertable</tt> into <tt>*this</tt>.
</p></li>
</ul>
<p>
Maybe it would be useful to introduce a new name for such conditional requirement (in addition to 
"<tt>CopyInsertable</tt>" and "<tt>MoveInsertable</tt>").
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2159"></a>2159. <tt>atomic_flag</tt> initialization</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 29.7 [atomics.flag] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Alberto Ganesh Barbati <b>Opened:</b> 2012-05-24 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#atomics.flag">issues</a> in [atomics.flag].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
29.7 [atomics.flag]&#47;4 describes the <tt>ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT</tt>, but it's not quite clear about a 
couple of points:
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>
it's said that <tt>ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT</tt> "can be used to initialize an object of type <tt>atomic_flag</tt>" 
and the following example:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
std::atomic_flag guard = ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT;
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
is presented. It's not clear whether the macro can also be used in the other initialization contexts:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
std::atomic_flag guard ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT; 
std::atomic_flag guard {ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT};

struct A { std::atomic_flag flag; A(); };
A::A() : flag (ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT); 
A::A() : flag {ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT};
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
Please also note that examples are non-normative, according to the ISO directives, meaning that the wording 
presents no normative way to use the macro.
</p>
</li>

<li><p>
it's said that "It is unspecified whether an uninitialized <tt>atomic_flag</tt> object has an initial state 
of set or clear.". I believe the use of "uninitialized" is inappropriate. First of all, if an object is 
uninitialized it is obvious that we cannot assert anything about its state. Secondly, it doesn't address the 
following cases:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
std::atomic_flag a; <i>// object is "initialized" by trivial default constructor</i>
std::atomic_flag a {}; <i>// object is value-initialized</i>
static std::atomic_flag a; <i>// object is zero-initialized</i>
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
strictly speaking a trivial constructor "initializes" the object, although it doesn't actually initialize the 
sub-objects.
</p></li>

<li><p>it's said that "For a static-duration object, that initialization shall be static.". Considering 
the following example:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
struct A
{
  A(); <i>// user-provided, not constexpr</i>

  std::atomic_flag flag = ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT;
  <i>// possibly other non-static data members</i>
};

static A a;
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
The object <tt>a.flag</tt> (as a sub-object of the object <tt>a</tt>) has static-duration, yet the initialization 
has to be dynamic because <tt>A::A</tt> is not <tt>constexpr</tt>.
</p>

</li>
</ol>

<p><i>[2012, Portland]</i></p>

<p>
We would like to be able to allow more initialisation contexts for example:
</p>
<ol>
<li>C struct</li>
<li>C++ constructor initializer-list</li>
</ol>
<p>
However we need further input from experts with implementation specific knowledge
to identify which additional contexts (if any) would be universally valid.
</p>
<p>
Moved to open
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p><i>[This wording is relative to N3376.]</i></p>


<p>Change 29.7 [atomics.flag]&#47;4 as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>
The macro <tt>ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT</tt> shall be defined in such a way that it can be used to initialize an object of
type <tt>atomic_flag</tt> to the clear state.  <ins>The macro can be used in the form:</ins>
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>atomic_flag guard = ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT;</ins>
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
<ins>It's unspecified whether the macro can be used in other initialization contexts.</ins> For a <ins>complete</ins>
static-duration object, that initialization shall be static. <del>It is unspecified whether an uninitialized</del> 
<ins>Unless initialized with <tt>ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT</tt>, it is unspecified whether an</ins> <tt>atomic_flag</tt> 
object has an initial state of set or clear. <del><i>[ Example:</i></del>
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<del>atomic_flag guard = ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT;</del>
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
<del>&mdash; <i>end example ]</i></del>
</p>
</blockquote>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2160"></a>2160. Unintended destruction ordering-specification of <tt>resize</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.3.6.3 [vector.capacity] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2012-06-07 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</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#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
As part of resolving LWG issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#2033">2033</a> a wording change was done for <tt>resize()</tt> to 
respect the problem mentioned in the question:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
Does a call to 'void resize(size_type sz)' 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 Effects 
paragraph would require the element type to be <tt>MoveAssignable</tt>?
</p></blockquote>
<p>
The wording change was to replace in 23.3.3.3 [deque.capacity] and 23.3.6.3 [vector.capacity]:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
-1- <i>Effects</i>: If <tt>sz &lt;= size()</tt>, equivalent to <tt>erase(begin() + sz, end())</tt>; [&hellip;]
</p></blockquote>
<p>
by:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
-1- <i>Effects</i>: If <tt>sz &lt;= size()</tt>, equivalent to calling <tt>pop_back() size() - sz</tt> times. [&hellip;]
</p></blockquote>
<p>
The overlooked side-effect of this wording change is that this implies a destruction order
of the removed elements to be in reverse order of construction, but the previous version
did not impose any specific destruction order due to the way how the semantics of <tt>erase</tt>
is specified in Table 100.
<p/>
Given the program:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;vector&gt;
#include &lt;iostream&gt;

struct Probe {
  int value;
  Probe() : value(0) {}
  Probe(int value) : value(value) {}
  ~Probe() { std::cout &lt;&lt; "~Probe() of " &lt;&lt; value &lt;&lt; std::endl; }
};

int main() {
  std::vector&lt;Probe&gt; v;
  v.push_back(Probe(1));
  v.push_back(Probe(2));
  v.push_back(Probe(3));
  std::cout &lt;&lt; "---" &lt;&lt; std::endl;
  <span style="color:#C80000;font-weight:bold">v.resize(0)</span>;
}
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
the last three lines of the output for every compiler I tested was:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
~Probe() of 1
~Probe() of 2
~Probe() of 3
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
but a conforming implementation would now need to change this order to
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
~Probe() of 3
~Probe() of 2
~Probe() of 1
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
This possible stringent interpretation makes sense, because one can argue that sequence containers 
(or at least <tt>std::vector</tt>) should have the same required destruction order of it's elements,
as elements of a C array or controlled by memory deallocated with an array <tt>delete</tt> have.
I also learned that libc++ does indeed implement <tt>std::vector::resize</tt> in a way that the
second output form is observed.
<p/>
While I agree that required reverse-destruction would better mimic the natural behaviour of
<tt>std::vector</tt> this was not required in C++03 and this request may be too strong. My current 
suggestion would be to restore the effects of the previous wording <em>in regard to the destruction order</em>, 
because otherwise several currently existing implementations would be broken just because of this
additional requirement.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Open.
</p>
<p>
Jonathan says that he believes this is a valid issue.
</p>
<p>
Walter wonders if this was intended when we made the previous change - if so, this would be NAD.
</p>
<p>
Jonathan said that Issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#2033">2033</a> doesn't mention ordering.
</p>
<p>
Walter then asked if anyone is really unhappy that we're destroying items in reverse order of construction.
</p>
<p>
Jonathan points out that this conflicts with existing practice (libstc++, but not libc++).
</p>
<p>
Jonathan asked for clarification as to whether this change was intended by <a href="lwg-defects.html#2033">2033</a>.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2161"></a>2161. <tt>const</tt> equivalence of <tt>std::map</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.4 [associative], 23.5 [unord] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Bjarne Stroustrup <b>Opened:</b> 2012-06-18 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</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#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
As described in the reflector discussion c++std-core-21860 consider the following example:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
map&lt;const int, int&gt; mci{};
map&lt;int, int&gt; mi = mci; // ??
mci[1] = 2;
mi[1] = 2;
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
Should it be required that the marked initialization is well-formed? As a possible solution
this could be realized by an alias template:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class K, class T&gt;
struct OriginalMap { [&hellip;] };

template &lt;class K, class T&gt;
using ImprovedMap = OriginalMap&lt;const K, T&gt;;
</pre></blockquote>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2164"></a>2164. What are the semantics of <tt>vector.emplace(vector.begin(), vector.back())</tt>?</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.3.6.5 [vector.modifiers], 23.2 [container.requirements] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Howard Hinnant <b>Opened:</b> 2012-07-07 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#vector.modifiers">issues</a> in [vector.modifiers].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Nikolay Ivchenkov recently brought the following example on the
<a href="https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/topic/std-discussion/dhy23mDFXj4/discussion">std-discussion</a> 
newsgroup, asking whether the following program well-defined:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;iostream&gt;
#include &lt;vector&gt;

int main()
{
  std::vector&lt;int&gt; v;
  v.reserve(4);
  v = { 1, 2, 3 };
  v.emplace(v.begin(), v.back());
  for (int x : v)
    std::cout &lt;&lt; x &lt;&lt; std::endl;
}
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
Nikolay Ivchenkov:
<p/>
I think that an implementation of <tt>vector</tt>'s 'emplace' should initialize an intermediate object with 
<tt>v.back()</tt> before any shifts take place, then perform all necessary shifts and finally replace the 
value pointed to by <tt>v.begin()</tt> with the value of the intermediate object. So, I would expect the 
following output:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
3
1
2
3
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
GNU C++ 4.7.1 and GNU C++ 4.8.0 produce other results:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
2
1
2
3
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
Howard Hinnant:
<p/>
I believe Nikolay is correct that vector should initialize an intermediate object with <tt>v.back()</tt> 
before any shifts take place. As Nikolay pointed out in another email, this appears to be the only way to 
satisfy the strong exception guarantee when an exception is not thrown by <tt>T</tt>'s copy constructor, 
move constructor, copy assignment operator, or move assignment operator as specified by 
23.3.6.5 [vector.modifiers]/p1. I.e. if the emplace construction throws, the vector must remain unaltered.
<p/>
That leads to an implementation that tolerates objects bound to the function parameter pack of the <tt>emplace</tt> 
member function may be elements or sub-objects of elements of the container.
<p/>
My position is that the standard is correct as written, but needs a clarification in this area. Self-referencing 
<tt>emplace</tt> should be legal and give the result Nikolay expects. The proposed resolution of LWG <a href="lwg-closed.html#760">760</a> 
is not correct.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2165"></a>2165. <tt>std::atomic&lt;X&gt;</tt> requires <tt>X</tt> to be nothrow default constructible</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 29.5 [atomics.types.generic], 29.6 [atomics.types.operations] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Core">Core</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2012-07-19 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#atomics.types.generic">issues</a> in [atomics.types.generic].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Core">Core</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
As raised in c++std-lib-32781, this fails to compile even though the default constructor is not used:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;atomic&gt;

struct X {
  X() noexcept(false) {}
  X(int) { }
};

std::atomic&lt;X&gt; x(3);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>This is because <tt>atomic&lt;T&gt;</tt>'s default constructor is declared to be non-throwing and 
is explicitly-defaulted on its first declaration:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
atomic() noexcept = default;
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
This is ill-formed if the implicitly-declared default constructor would not be non-throwing.
<p/>
Possible solutions:
</p>
<ol>
<li>
Add nothrow default constructible to requirements for template argument of the generic <tt>atomic&lt;T&gt;</tt>
</li>
<li>
Remove <tt>atomic&lt;T&gt;::atomic()</tt> from the overload set if <tt>T</tt> is not nothrow default constructible.
</li>
<li>
Remove <tt>noexcept</tt> from <tt>atomic&lt;T&gt;::atomic()</tt>, allowing it to be
deduced (but the default constructor is intended to be always noexcept)
</li>
<li>
Do not default <tt>atomic&lt;T&gt;::atomic()</tt> on its first declaration (but makes the default constructor 
user-provided and so prevents <tt>atomic&lt;T&gt;</tt> being trivial)
</li>
<li>
A core change to allow the mismatched exception specification if the default constructor isn't used 
(see c++std-core-21990)
</li>
</ol>

<p><i>[2012, Portland: move to Core]</i></p>

<p>
Recommend referring to core to see if the constructor <tt>noexcept</tt> mismatch
can be resolved there. The issue is not specific to concurrency.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2166"></a>2166. Heap property underspecified?</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 25.4.6 [alg.heap.operations] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Peter Sommerlad <b>Opened:</b> 2012-07-09 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#alg.heap.operations">issues</a> in [alg.heap.operations].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Another similar issue to the <tt>operator&lt;</tt> vs greater in <tt>nth_element</tt> but not as direct occurs 
in 25.4.6 [alg.heap.operations]:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
-1- A <em>heap</em> is a particular organization of elements in a range between two random access iterators 
<tt>[a,b)</tt>. Its two key properties are:
</p>
<ol>
<li>There is no element greater than <tt>*a</tt> in the range and
</li>
<li><tt>*a</tt> may be removed by <tt>pop_heap()</tt>, or a new element added by <tt>push_heap()</tt>, in 
O(log(<tt>N</tt>)) time.
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>
As noted by Richard Smith, it seems that the first bullet should read:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<tt>*a</tt> is not less than any element in the range
</p></blockquote>
<p>
Even better the heap condition could be stated here directly, instead of leaving it unspecified, i.e.,
</p>
<blockquote><p>
Each element at <tt>(a+2*i+1)</tt> and <tt>(a+2*i+2)</tt> is less than the element at <tt>(a+i)</tt>, 
if those elements exist, for <tt>i&gt;=0</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
But may be that was may be intentional to allow other heap organizations?
<p/>
See also follow-up discussion of c++std-lib-32780.
<p/>

</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2167"></a>2167. Copy assignment requirements of Containers</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.2.1 [container.requirements.general] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#NAD">Tentatively NAD</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Dean Michael Berris <b>Opened:</b> 2012-07-13 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#container.requirements.general">active issues</a> in [container.requirements.general].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#container.requirements.general">issues</a> in [container.requirements.general].</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Table 96 defines the general requirement for copy assignment (row 23, page 704) as:
</p>

<table border="1">
<caption>Table 96 &mdash; Container requirements</caption>

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

<tr>
<td>
<tt>r = a</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>X&amp;</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt></tt>
</td>
<td>
post: <tt>r == a.</tt>
</td>
<td>
linear
</td>
</tr>

</table>

<p>
However there is no requirement that <tt>T</tt> is <tt>CopyInsertable</tt> into <tt>X</tt>.
</p>

<p><i>[2012, Portland: Move to Tentatively NAD]</i></p>

<p>
Howard notes that this may be a difficult requirement for <tt>std::array</tt>
</p>

<p>
We already have this requirement for allocator aware containers, and
<tt>std::array</tt> already adds the appropriate extra requirement.
</p>

<p>
We say the necessary things in the necessary places, but the container requirements
continue to cause confusion in where we sometimes say things.  Consensus is that
this issue remains NAD though.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3376.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change Table 96 &mdash; "Container requirements" in 23.2.1 [container.requirements.general]:</p>

<table border="1">
<caption>Table 96 &mdash; Container requirements</caption>

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

<tr>
<td>
<tt>r = a</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>X&amp;</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt></tt>
</td>
<td>
<ins><i>Requires</i>: <tt>T</tt> is <tt>CopyInsertable</tt> into <tt>X</tt>.</ins><br/>
post: <tt>r == a.</tt>
</td>
<td>
linear
</td>
</tr>

</table>

</li>
</ol>







<hr>
<h3><a name="2168"></a>2168. Inconsistent specification of <tt>uniform_real_distribution</tt> constructor</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 26.5.8.2.2 [rand.dist.uni.real] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Marshall Clow <b>Opened:</b> 2012-07-14 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
uniform_real says in 26.5.8.2.2 [rand.dist.uni.real] p1:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
A <tt>uniform_real_distribution</tt> random number distribution produces random numbers <tt>x</tt>, <tt>a &le; x &lt; b</tt>,
</p></blockquote>
<p>
but also that (26.5.8.2.2 [rand.dist.uni.real] p2):
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
explicit uniform_real_distribution(RealType a = 0.0, RealType b = 1.0);
</pre><blockquote><p>
-2- <i>Requires</i>: <tt>a &le; b</tt> and <tt>b - a &le; numeric_limits&lt;RealType&gt;::max()</tt>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<p>
If you construct a <tt>uniform_real_distribution&lt;RealType&gt;(a, b)</tt> where there are no representable 
numbers between 'a' and 'b' (using <tt>RealType</tt>'s representation) then you cannot satisfy 
26.5.8.2.2 [rand.dist.uni.real].
<p/>
An obvious example is when <tt>a == b</tt>.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2170"></a>2170. Aggregates cannot be <tt>DefaultConstructible</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 17.6.3.1 [utility.arg.requirements] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Core">Core</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2012-07-19 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#utility.arg.requirements">active issues</a> in [utility.arg.requirements].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#utility.arg.requirements">issues</a> in [utility.arg.requirements].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Core">Core</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
The lack of the definition of the <tt>DefaultConstructible</tt> requirements in C++03 was fixed 
by LWG <a href="lwg-defects.html#724">724</a> at a time where the core rules of list-initialization were slightly
different than today, at that time value-initialization (shortly) was the primary rule for
class types, i.e. just before applying <a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1301">CWG 1301</a>, 
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1324">CWG 1324</a>, and 
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1368">CWG 1368</a>.
<p/>
The order in 8.5.4 [dcl.init.list] p3 was changed to respect aggregate initialization, but that
had the side-effect that formally aggregate types cannot satisfy the <tt>DefaultConstructible</tt>
requirements anymore, because we require that
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
T u{};
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
<em>value-initializes</em> the object <tt>u</tt>.
<p/>
Of-course exclusion of aggregates was not intended, therefore I suggest to extend the requirements
in Table 19 (17.6.3.1 [utility.arg.requirements]) for empty aggregate-initialization as well.
</p>

<p><i>[
2012-10 Portland: Move to Core 
]</i></p>


<p>
We are not qualified to pick apart the Core rules quickly at this point, but the consensus is
that if the core language has changed in this manner, then the fix should similarly be applied
in Core - this is not something that we want users of the language to have to say every time
they want to Value initialize (or aggregate initialize) an object.
</p>

<p>
More to Open until we get a clear response from Core, Alisdair to file an issue with Mike.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3376.</p>

<p>Change Table 19 in 17.6.3.1 [utility.arg.requirements] as indicated:</p>

<table border="1">
<caption>Table 19 &mdash; <tt>DefaultConstructible</tt> requirements [defaultconstructible]</caption>

<tr>
<th>Expression</th>
<th>Post-condition</th>
</tr> 

<tr>
<td>
<tt>T t;</tt>
</td>
<td>
object <tt>t</tt> is default-initialized
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>T u{};</tt>
</td>
<td>
object <tt>u</tt> is value-initialized <ins>or aggregate-initialized</ins>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>T()</tt><br/>
<tt>T{}</tt>
</td>
<td>
a temporary object of type <tt>T</tt> is value-initialized <ins>or aggregate-initialized</ins>
</td>
</tr>

</table>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2173"></a>2173. The meaning of operator + in the description of the algorithms</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 25 [algorithms] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Nikolay Ivchenkov <b>Opened:</b> 2012-08-01 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</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>
According to 25.1 [algorithms.general]/12,
</p>
<blockquote><p>
In the description of the algorithms operators <tt>+</tt> and <tt>-</tt> are used for some of the iterator categories 
for which they do not have to be defined. In these cases the semantics of <tt>a+n</tt> is the same as that of
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
X tmp = a;
advance(tmp, n);
return tmp;
</pre></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>
There are several places where such operator <tt>+</tt> is applied to an output iterator &mdash; for example, see the 
description of <tt>std::copy</tt>:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class InputIterator, class OutputIterator&gt;
OutputIterator copy(InputIterator first, InputIterator last,
                    OutputIterator result);
</pre>
<blockquote><p>
-1- <i>Effects</i>: Copies elements in the range <tt>[first,last)</tt> into the range <tt>[result,result + (last -
first))</tt> starting from <tt>first</tt> and proceeding to <tt>last</tt>. For each non-negative integer 
<tt>n &lt; (last - first)</tt>, performs <tt>*(result + n) = *(first + n)</tt>.
</p></blockquote></blockquote>
<p>
<tt>std::advance</tt> is not supposed to be applicable to output iterators, so we need a different method of description.
<p/>
See also message <a href="http://accu.org/cgi-bin/wg21/message?wg=lib&amp;msg=32908">c++std-lib-32908</a>.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2178"></a>2178. <tt>Allocator</tt> requirement changes not mentioned Annex C</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 17.6.3.5 [allocator.requirements], C.2 [diff.library] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Nevin Liber <b>Opened:</b> 2012-08-14 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</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>
Given that a number of things were removed from the allocator requirements (<tt>reference</tt>, <tt>const_reference</tt>, 
<tt>address()</tt> in 17.6.3.5 [allocator.requirements]), it seems that these incompatible changes should be 
mentioned in Annex C.2 [diff.library], more specifically in [diff.cpp03].
</p>

<p><i>[
2012-10 Portland: Move to Open 
]</i></p>


<p>
It was clearly pointed out by Bill during the C++11 process that our change to allocator requirements
potentially broke 3rd party user containers written to expect C++03 allocators, or rather, an
allocator written to the minimal requirements of C++11 might not be guaranteed to work with a container
written to the previous rules.  This was a trade-off in making allocaters easier to write by use of
the <tt>allocator_traits</tt> framework.
</p>

<p>
This probably does merit a write-up in Annex C, and we look forward to seeing wording.  Until then,
the best we can do is move the issue to Open.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2179"></a>2179. <tt>enable_shared_from_this</tt> and construction from raw pointers</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.7.2.4 [util.smartptr.enab], 20.7.2.2.1 [util.smartptr.shared.const] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2012-08-16 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
On reflector message <a href="http://accu.org/cgi-bin/wg21/message?wg=lib&amp;msg=32927">c++std-lib-32927</a>, 
Matt Austern asked whether the following example should be well-defined or not
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
struct X : public enable_shared_from_this&lt;X&gt; { };
auto xraw = new X;
shared_ptr&lt;X&gt; xp1(xraw);
shared_ptr&lt;X&gt; xp2(xraw);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
pointing out that 20.7.2.2.1 [util.smartptr.shared.const] does not seem to allow it, since
<tt>xp1</tt> and <tt>xp2</tt> aren't allowed to share ownership, because each of them is required to have 
<tt>use_count() == 1</tt>. Despite this wording it might be reasonable (and technical possible)
to implement that request.
<p/>
On the other hand, there is the non-normative note in 20.7.2.4 [util.smartptr.enab] p11 (already part of TR1):
</p>
<blockquote><p>
The <tt>shared_ptr</tt> constructors that <span style="color:#C80000;font-weight:bold">create unique pointers</span> 
can detect the presence of an <tt>enable_shared_from_this</tt> base and assign the newly created <tt>shared_ptr</tt> 
to its <tt>__weak_this member</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
Now according to the specification in 20.7.2.2.1 [util.smartptr.shared.const] p3-7:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class Y&gt; explicit shared_ptr(Y* p);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
the notion of <em>creating unique pointers</em> can be read to be included by this note, because the post-condition
of this constructor is <tt>unique() == true</tt>. Evidence for this interpretation seems to be weak, though.
<p/>
Howard Hinnant presented the counter argument, that actually the following is an "anti-idiom" and
it seems questionable to teach it to be well-defined in any case:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
auto xraw = new X;
shared_ptr&lt;X&gt; xp1(xraw);
shared_ptr&lt;X&gt; xp2(xraw);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
He also pointed out that the current post-conditions of the affected <tt>shared_ptr</tt> constructor
would need to be reworded.
<p/>
It needs to be decided, which direction to follow. If this idiom seems too much broken to be supported,
the note could be improved. If it should be supported, the constructors in
20.7.2.2.1 [util.smartptr.shared.const] need a careful analysis to ensure that post-conditions
are correct.
<p/>
Several library implementations currently do not support this example, instead they typically
cause a crash. Matt points out that there are currently no explicit requirements imposed on
<tt>shared_ptr</tt> objects to own the same underlying object without sharing the ownership. It
might be useful to add such a requirement.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Open.
</p>
<p>
More discussion is needed to pick a direction to guide a proposed resolution.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2180"></a>2180. Exceptions from <tt>std::seed_seq</tt> operations</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 26.5.7.1 [rand.util.seedseq] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2012-08-18 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#rand.util.seedseq">issues</a> in [rand.util.seedseq].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
26.5.7.1 [rand.util.seedseq] p1 says upfront:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
No function described in this section 26.5.7.1 [rand.util.seedseq] throws an exception.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
This constraint seems non-implementable to me when looking especially at the members
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class T&gt;
seed_seq(initializer_list&lt;T&gt; il);

template&lt;class InputIterator&gt;
seed_seq(InputIterator begin, InputIterator end);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
which have the effect of invoking <tt>v.push_back()</tt> for the exposition-only member of
type <tt>std::vector</tt> (or its equivalent) over all elements of the provided range, so
out-of-memory exceptions are always possible and the <tt>seed_seq</tt> object doesn't seem
to be constructible this way.
<p/>
In addition to the potential lack-of-resources problem, the operations of <tt>InputIterator</tt>
might also throw exceptions.
<p/>
Aside to that it should me mentioned, that a default constructor of <tt>vector&lt;uint_least32_t&gt;</tt> 
in theory can also throw exceptions, even though this seems less of a problem to me in this context, because 
such an implementation could easily use a different internal container in <tt>seed_seq</tt> that can hold 
this no-throw exception guarantee.
<p/>
Secondly, a slightly different problem category related to exceptions occurs for the member templates
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class RandomAccessIterator&gt;
void generate(RandomAccessIterator begin, RandomAccessIterator end);

template&lt;class OutputIterator&gt;
void param(OutputIterator dest) const;
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
where the actual operations performed by the implementation would never need to throw, but since they invoke
operations of a user-provided customization point, the overall operation, like for example
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
copy(v.begin(), v.end(), dest);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
could also throw exceptions. In this particular example we can just think of a <tt>std::back_insert_iterator</tt>
applied to a container that needs to allocate its elements used as the type for <tt>OutputIterator</tt>.
<p/>
Even though Clause 26 [numerics] has mostly stronger exception constraints than other parts of the
library the here discussed are overrestrictive, especially since no operation of <tt>std::seed_seq</tt> 
except the template <tt>generate</tt> is actually needed within the library implementation, as mentioned in the 
discussion of LWG <a href="lwg-closed.html#2124">2124</a>.
<p/>
I suggest to remove the general no-exception constraints for operations of <tt>std::seed_seq</tt> except for
member <tt>size()</tt> and the default constructor and to provide specific wording for <tt>generate()</tt> and
<tt>param()</tt> to ensure that the algorithm itself is a nothrow operation, which is especially for
<tt>generate()</tt> important, because the templates specified in 26.5.3 [rand.eng] and 
26.5.4 [rand.adapt] also depend on this property indirectly, which is further discussed in LWG 
<a href="lwg-active.html#2181">2181</a>.
<p/>
<u>Howard</u>:
<p/>
I suggest to use a different form for the exception specification, something similar to 
20.8.9.1.2 [func.bind.bind] p4:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Throws</i>: Nothing unless an operation on <tt>RandomAccessIterator</tt> throws an exception.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
<u>Daniel</u>:
<p/>
The currently suggested "what and when" form seems a bit more specific and harmonizes with the form used for
function template <tt>generate_canonical</tt> from 26.5.7.2 [rand.util.canonical].
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3376.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Edit 26.5.7.1 [rand.util.seedseq] p1 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>
<del>-1- No function described in this section 26.5.7.1 [rand.util.seedseq] throws an exception.</del>
</p>
</blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Edit 26.5.7.1 [rand.util.seedseq] around p2 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
seed_seq();
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-2- <i>Effects</i>: Constructs a <tt>seed_seq</tt> object as if by default-constructing its member <tt>v</tt>.
<p/>
<ins>-?- <i>Throws</i>: Nothing.</ins>
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Edit 26.5.7.1 [rand.util.seedseq] around p7 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class RandomAccessIterator&gt;
  void generate(RandomAccessIterator begin, RandomAccessIterator end);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-7- <i>Requires</i>: <tt>RandomAccessIterator</tt> shall meet the requirements of a mutable random access iterator
(Table 111) type. Moreover, <tt>iterator_traits&lt;class RandomAccessIterator&gt;::value_type</tt> shall denote
an unsigned integer type capable of accommodating 32-bit quantities.
<p/>
-8- <i>Effects</i>: Does nothing if <tt>begin == end</tt>. Otherwise, with <tt>s = v.size()</tt> and 
<tt>n = end - begin</tt>, fills the supplied range <tt>[begin, end)</tt> according to the following algorithm [&hellip;]
<p/>
<ins>-?- <i>Throws</i>: What and when <tt>RandomAccessIterator</tt> operations of <tt>begin</tt> and <tt>end</tt> throw.</ins>
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Edit 26.5.7.1 [rand.util.seedseq] around p9 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
size_t size() const;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-9- <i>Returns</i>: The number of 32-bit units that would be returned by a call to <tt>param()</tt>.
<p/>
<ins>-??- <i>Throws</i>: Nothing.</ins>
<p/>
-10- <i>Complexity</i>: constant time.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Edit 26.5.7.1 [rand.util.seedseq] around p11 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class OutputIterator&gt;
  void param(OutputIterator dest) const;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-11- <i>Requires</i>: <tt>OutputIterator</tt> shall satisfy the requirements of an output iterator (Table 108) type. 
Moreover, the expression <tt>*dest = rt</tt> shall be valid for a value <tt>rt</tt> of type <tt>result_type</tt>.
<p/>
-12- <i>Effects</i>: Copies the sequence of prepared 32-bit units to the given destination, as if by executing the
following statement:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
copy(v.begin(), v.end(), dest);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
<ins>-??- <i>Throws</i>: What and when <tt>OutputIterator</tt> operations of <tt>dest</tt> throw.</ins>
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2181"></a>2181. Exceptions from <em>seed sequence</em> operations</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 26.5.1.2 [rand.req.seedseq], 26.5.3 [rand.eng], 26.5.4 [rand.adapt] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2012-08-18 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#rand.req.seedseq">issues</a> in [rand.req.seedseq].</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-active.html#2180">2180</a> points out some deficiences in regard to the specification of the library-provided
type <tt>std::seed_seq</tt> regarding exceptions, but there is another specification problem 
in regard to general types satisfying the <em>seed sequence</em> constraints (named <tt>SSeq</tt>) as described in 
26.5.1.2 [rand.req.seedseq].
<p/>
26.5.3 [rand.eng] p3 and 26.5.4.1 [rand.adapt.general] p3 say upfront:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
Except where specified otherwise, no function described in this section 
26.5.3 [rand.eng]/26.5.4 [rand.adapt] throws an exception.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
This constraint causes problems, because the described templates in these sub-clauses depend on operations of 
<tt>SSeq::generate()</tt> which is a function template, that depends both on operations provided by the 
implementor of <tt>SSeq</tt> (e.g. of <tt>std::seed_seq</tt>), and those of the random access iterator type 
provided by the caller. With class template <tt>linear_congruential_engine</tt> we have just one example for a user 
of <tt>SSeq::generate()</tt> via:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class Sseq&gt; 
linear_congruential_engine&lt;&gt;::linear_congruential_engine(Sseq&amp; q);

template&lt;class Sseq&gt; 
void linear_congruential_engine&lt;&gt;::seed(Sseq&amp; q);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
None of these operations has an exclusion rule for exceptions.
<p/>
As described in <a href="lwg-active.html#2180">2180</a> the wording for <tt>std::seed_seq</tt> should and can be fixed to ensure that 
operations of <tt>seed_seq::generate()</tt> won't throw except from operations of the provided iterator range, 
but there is no corresponding "safety belt" for user-provided <tt>SSeq</tt> types, since 26.5.1.2 [rand.req.seedseq]
does not impose no-throw requirements onto operations of <em>seed sequences</em>.
</p>

<ol style="list-style-type:upper-roman">

<li><p>
A quite radical step to fix this problem would be to impose general no-throw requirements on the expression
<tt>q.generate(rb,re)</tt> from Table 115, but this is not as simple as it looks initially, because this
function again depends on general types that are mutable random access iterators. Typically, we do not
impose no-throw requirements on iterator operations and this would restrict general seed sequences where
exceptions are not a problem. Furthermore, we do not impose comparable constraints for other expressions,
like that of the expression <tt>g()</tt> in Table 116 for good reasons, e.g. <tt>random_device::operator()</tt>
explicitly states when it throws exceptions.
</p></li>

<li><p>
A less radical variant of the previous suggestion would be to add a normative requirement on the expression
<tt>q.generate(rb,re)</tt> from Table 115 that says: "Throws nothing if operations of <tt>rb</tt> and <tt>re</tt> 
do not throw exceptions". Nevertheless we typically do not describe <em>conditional</em> Throws elements in proper
requirement sets elsewhere (Container requirements excluded, they just describe the containers from Clause 23)
and this may exclude resonable implementations of seed sequences that could throw exceptions under rare
situations. 
</p></li>

<li><p>
The iterator arguments provided to <tt>SSeq::generate()</tt> for operations in templates of 26.5.3 [rand.eng] and 
26.5.4 [rand.adapt] are under control of implementations, so we could impose stricter exceptions requirements
on <tt>SSeq::generate()</tt> for <tt>SSeq</tt> types that are used to instantiate member templates in 26.5.3 [rand.eng] 
and 26.5.4 [rand.adapt] solely.
</p></li>

<li><p>
We simply add extra wording to the introductive parts of 26.5.3 [rand.eng] and 26.5.4 [rand.adapt]
that specify that operations of the engine (adaptor) templates that depend on a template parameter <tt>SSeq</tt>
throw no exception unless <tt>SSeq::generate()</tt> throws an exception.
</p></li>
</ol>

<p>
Given these options I would suggest to apply the variant described in the fourth bullet.
<p/>
The proposed resolution attempts to reduce a lot of the redundancies of requirements in the introductory paragraphs of 
26.5.3 [rand.eng] and 26.5.4 [rand.adapt] by introducing a new intermediate sub-clause 
"Engine and engine adaptor class templates" following sub-clause 26.5.2 [rand.synopsis]. This approach also
solves the problem that currently 26.5.3 [rand.eng] also describes requirements that apply for
26.5.4 [rand.adapt] (Constrained templates involving the <tt>Sseq</tt> parameters).
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3376.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Add a new sub-clause titled "Engine and engine adaptor class templates" following sub-clause 
26.5.2 [rand.synopsis] (but at the same level) and add one further sub-clause "General" as
child of the new sub-clause as follows:
<p/>
<ins>Engine and engine adaptor class templates [rand.engadapt]</ins>
<p/>
<ins>General [rand.engadapt.general]</ins>
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<ins>-?- Throughout this sub-clause general requirements and conventions are described that apply to every class 
template specified in sub-clause 26.5.3 [rand.eng] and 26.5.4 [rand.adapt]. Phrases of the 
form "in those sub-clauses" shall be interpreted as equivalent to "in sub-clauses 26.5.3 [rand.eng] and 
26.5.4 [rand.adapt]".
</ins>
<p/>
<ins>-?- Except where specified otherwise, the complexity of each function specified in those sub-clauses is constant.</ins>
<p/>
<ins>-?- Except where specified otherwise, no function described in those sub-clauses throws an exception.</ins>
<p/>
<ins>-?- Every function described in those sub-clauses that has a function parameter <tt>q</tt> of type
<tt>SSeq&amp;</tt> for a template type parameter named <tt>SSeq</tt> that is different from type <tt>std::seed_seq</tt> 
throws what and when the invocation of <tt>q.generate</tt> throws.</ins>
<p/>
<ins>-?- Descriptions are provided in those sub-clauses only for engine operations that are not described in 
26.5.1.4 [rand.req.eng], for adaptor operations that are not described in 26.5.1.5 [rand.req.adapt],
or for operations where there is additional semantic information. In particular, declarations for copy constructors,
for copy assignment operators, for streaming operators, and for equality and inequality operators
are not shown in the synopses.</ins>
<p/>
<ins>-?- Each template specified in those sub-clauses requires one or more relationships, involving the value(s) of
its non-type template parameter(s), to hold. A program instantiating any of these templates is ill-formed if
any such required relationship fails to hold.</ins>
<p/>
<ins>-?- For every random number engine and for every random number engine adaptor <tt>X</tt> defined in those 
sub-clauses:</ins>
</p>
<ul>
<li><p>
<ins>if the constructor</ins>
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>template &lt;class Sseq&gt; explicit X(Sseq&amp; q);</ins>
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
<ins>is called with a type <tt>Sseq</tt> that does not qualify as a seed sequence, then this constructor shall not
participate in overload resolution;</ins>
</p>
</li>

<li><p>
<ins>if the member function</ins>
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>template &lt;class Sseq&gt; void seed(Sseq&amp; q);</ins>
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
<ins>is called with a type <tt>Sseq</tt> that does not qualify as a seed sequence, then this function shall not
participate in overload resolution;</ins>
</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
<ins>The extent to which an implementation determines that a type cannot be a seed sequence is unspecified,
except that as a minimum a type shall not qualify as a seed sequence if it is implicitly convertible to
<tt>X::result_type</tt>.</ins>
</p>
</blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Edit the contents of sub-clause 26.5.3 [rand.eng] as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><p>
-1- Each type instantiated from a class template specified in this section 26.5.3 [rand.eng] satisfies the 
requirements of a random number engine (26.5.1.4 [rand.req.eng]) type <ins>and the general implementation 
requirements specified in sub-clause [rand.engadapt.general]</ins>.
<p/>
<del>-2- Except where specified otherwise, the complexity of each function specified in this section 26.5.3 [rand.eng] 
is constant.</del>
<p/>
<del>-3- Except where specified otherwise, no function described in this section 26.5.3 [rand.eng] throws an exception.</del>
<p/>
<del>-4- Descriptions are provided in this section 26.5.3 [rand.eng] only for engine operations that are not 
described in 26.5.1.4 [rand.req.eng] [&hellip;]</del>
<p/>
<del>-5- Each template specified in this section 26.5.3 [rand.eng] requires one or more relationships, 
involving the value(s) of its non-type template parameter(s), to hold. [&hellip;]</del>
<p/>
<del>-6- For every random number engine and for every random number engine adaptor <tt>X</tt> defined in this subclause
(26.5.3 [rand.eng]) and in sub-clause 26.5.3 [rand.eng]: [&hellip;]</del>
</p></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Edit the contents of sub-clause 26.5.4.1 [rand.adapt.general] as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><p>
-1- Each type instantiated from a class template specified in this section <del>26.5.3 [rand.eng]</del><ins>26.5.4 [rand.adapt]</ins> satisfies the 
requirements of a random number engine adaptor (26.5.1.5 [rand.req.adapt]) type <ins>and the general 
implementation requirements specified in sub-clause [rand.engadapt.general]</ins>.
<p/>
<del>-2- Except where specified otherwise, the complexity of each function specified in this section 26.5.4 [rand.adapt] 
is constant.</del>
<p/>
<del>-3- Except where specified otherwise, no function described in this section 26.5.4 [rand.adapt] throws an exception.</del>
<p/>
<del>-4- Descriptions are provided in this section 26.5.4 [rand.adapt] only for engine operations that are not 
described in 26.5.1.5 [rand.req.adapt] [&hellip;]</del>
<p/>
<del>-5- Each template specified in this section 26.5.4 [rand.adapt] requires one or more relationships, involving 
the value(s) of its non-type template parameter(s), to hold. [&hellip;]</del>
</p></blockquote>

</li>

</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2182"></a>2182. <tt>Container::[const_]reference</tt> types are misleadingly specified</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.2.1 [container.requirements.general] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Review">Review</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2012-08-20 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#container.requirements.general">active issues</a> in [container.requirements.general].</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#Review">Review</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
According to Table 96 (Container requirements) the return type of <tt>X::reference</tt> and
<tt>X::const_reference</tt> is "lvalue of <tt>T</tt>" and "<tt>const</tt> lvalue of <tt>T</tt>",
respectively. This does not make much sense, because an lvalue is an expression category, not a type.
It could also refer to an expression that has a type, but this doesn't make sense either in this
context, because obviously <tt>X::[const_]reference</tt> are intended to refer to types. 
<p/>
Given the fact that <tt>vector&lt;bool&gt;</tt> has no real reference type for <tt>X::[const_]reference</tt> 
and this definition presumably is intended to cover such situations as well, one might think that the wording is
just a sloppy form of "type that represents a [const] lvalue of <tt>T</tt>". But this is also problematic,
because basically all proxy reference expressions are rvalues.
<p/>
It is unclear what the intention is. A straightward way of fixing this wording could make
<tt>X::[const_]reference</tt> identical to <tt>[const] T&amp;</tt>. This holds for all Library containers
except for <tt>vector&lt;bool&gt;</tt>.
<p/>
Another way of solving this definition problem would be to impose a requirement that holds for both
references and reference-like proxies. Both <tt>X::reference</tt> and <tt>X::const_reference</tt>
would need to be convertible to <tt>const T&amp;</tt>. Additionally <tt>X::reference</tt> would need to
support for a mutable container an assignment expression of the form 
<tt>declval&lt;X::reference&gt;() = declval&lt;T&gt;()</tt> (this presentation intentionally does not require 
<tt>declval&lt;X::reference<span style="color:#C80000;font-weight:bold">&amp;</span>&gt;() = declval&lt;T&gt;()</tt>).
<p/>
Further, the Table 96 does not impose any relations between <tt>X::reference</tt> and <tt>X::const_reference</tt>.
It seems that at least <tt>X::reference</tt> needs to be convertible to <tt>X::const_reference</tt>.
<p/>
A related question is whether <tt>X::reference</tt> is supposed to be a mutable reference-like type,
irrespective of whether the container is an immutable container or not. The way, type <tt>match_results</tt>
defines <tt>reference</tt> identical to <tt>const_reference</tt> indicates one specific interpretation (similarly,
the <tt>initializer_list</tt> template also defines member type <tt>reference</tt> equal to <tt>const value_type&amp;</tt>).
Note that this can be a different decision as that for <tt>iterator</tt> and <tt>const_iterator</tt>,
e.g. for sets the type <tt>X::reference</tt> still is a mutable reference, even though <tt>iterator</tt>
is described as constant iterator.
<p/>
The proposed resolution is incomplete in regard to the last question.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Review.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair notes that this looks like wording in the right direction.  Wonders about congruence of these
typedefs and the similar ones for iterators.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3376.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change Table 96 &mdash; "Container requirements" as indicated:</p>

<table border="1">
<caption>Table p6 &mdash; Container requirements</caption>

<tr>
<th>Expression</th>
<th>Return type</th>
<th>Operational<br/>Semantics</th>
<th>Assertion/note<br/>pre-/post-condition</th>
<th>Complexity</th>
</tr> 

<tr>
<td>
<tt>X::reference</tt>
</td>
<td>
<del>lvalue of</del><ins>type that behaves like a reference to</ins> <tt>T</tt>
</td>
<td>
&nbsp;
</td>
<td>
<ins>convertible to <tt>X::const_reference</tt><br/>
and to <tt>const T&amp;</tt></ins>
</td>
<td>
compile time
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>X::const_reference</tt>
</td>
<td>
<del>const lvalue of</del><ins>type that behaves like a reference to <tt>const</tt></ins> <tt>T</tt>
</td>
<td>
&nbsp;
</td>
<td>
<ins>convertible to <tt>const T&amp;</tt></ins>
</td>
<td>
compile time
</td>
</tr>

</table>

</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2183"></a>2183. Muddled allocator requirements for <tt>match_results</tt> constructors</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 28.10.1 [re.results.const], 28.10.6 [re.results.all] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Pete Becker <b>Opened:</b> 2012-08-29 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#re.results.const">active issues</a> in [re.results.const].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#re.results.const">issues</a> in [re.results.const].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
28.10.1 [re.results.const] p1 says:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
In all <tt>match_results</tt> constructors, a copy of the <tt>Allocator</tt> argument shall be used for any memory 
allocation performed by the constructor or member functions during the lifetime of the object.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
There are three constructors:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
match_results(const Allocator&amp; = Allocator());
match_results(const match_results&amp; m);
match_results(match_results&amp;&amp; m) noexcept;
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
The second and third constructors do no have an <tt>Allocator</tt> argument, so despite the "all <tt>match_results</tt> 
constructors", it is not possible to use "the <tt>Allocator</tt> argument" for the second and third constructors.
<p/>
The requirements for those two constructors also does not give any guidance. The second constructor has no language 
about allocators, and the third states that the stored <tt>Allocator</tt> value is move constructed from 
<tt>m.get_allocator()</tt>, but doesn't require using that allocator to allocate memory.
<p/>
The same basic problem recurs in 28.10.6 [re.results.all], which gives the required return value for 
<tt>get_allocator()</tt>:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Returns</i>: A copy of the <tt>Allocator</tt> that was passed to the object's constructor or, if that allocator 
has been replaced, a copy of the most recent replacement.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
Again, the second and third constructors do not take an <tt>Allocator</tt>, so there is nothing that meets this 
requirement when those constructors are used.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2184"></a>2184. Muddled allocator requirements for <tt>match_results</tt> assignments</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 28.10.1 [re.results.const], 28.10.6 [re.results.all] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Pete Becker <b>Opened:</b> 2012-08-29 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#re.results.const">active issues</a> in [re.results.const].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#re.results.const">issues</a> in [re.results.const].</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 effects of the two assignment operators are specified in Table 141. Table 141 makes no mention of allocators, 
so, presumably, they don't touch the target object's allocator. That's okay, but it leaves the question: 
<tt>match_results::get_allocator()</tt> is supposed to return "A copy of the Allocator that was passed to the 
object's constructor or, if that allocator has been replaced, a copy of the most recent replacement"; if assignment 
doesn't replace the allocator, how can the allocator be replaced?
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2186"></a>2186. Incomplete action on <tt>async/launch::deferred</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.6.8 [futures.async] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Vicente J. Botet Escriba <b>Opened:</b> 2012-09-20 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</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#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
The description of the effects of <tt>async</tt> when the launch policy is <tt>launch::deferred</tt> doesn't 
state what is done with the result of the deferred function invocation and the possible exceptions as it is done 
for the asynchronous function when the policy is <tt>launch::async</tt>.
</p>

<p><i>[2012, Portland: move to Open]</i></p>

<p>
Detlef: agree with the problem but not with the resolution. The wording should be applied to all launch policies
        rather than having to be separately specified for each one.
</p>
<p>
Hans: we should redraft to factor out the proposed text outside the two bullets. Needs to be carefully worded to
      be compatible with the resolution of <a href="lwg-active.html#2120">2120</a> (see above).
</p>
<p>
Moved to open
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p><i>[This wording is relative to N3376.]</i></p>


<ol>
<li><p>Change 30.6.8 [futures.async] p3 bullet 2 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class F, class... Args&gt;
future&lt;typename result_of&lt;typename decay&lt;F&gt;::type(typename decay&lt;Args>::type...)&gt;::type&gt;
async(F&amp;&amp; f, Args&amp;&amp;... args);
template &lt;class F, class... Args&gt;
future&lt;typename result_of&lt;typename decay&lt;F&gt;::type(typename decay&lt;Args&gt;::type...)&gt;::type&gt;
async(launch policy, F&amp;&amp; f, Args&amp;&amp;... args);
</pre><blockquote><p>
-2- <i>Requires</i>: [&hellip;]
<p/>
-3- <i>Effects:</i>: The first function behaves the same as a call to the second function with a <tt>policy</tt> argument of
<tt>launch::async | launch::deferred</tt> and the same arguments for <tt>F</tt> and <tt>Args</tt>. [&hellip;] The further 
behavior of the second function depends on the <tt>policy</tt> argument as follows (if more than one of these conditions
applies, the implementation may choose any of the corresponding policies):
</p>
<ul>
<li><p>if <tt>policy &amp; launch::async</tt> is non-zero [&hellip;]</p></li>
<li><p>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>(args))...</tt> in the shared state. These copies of <tt>f</tt> and <tt>args</tt>
constitute a <em>deferred function</em>. Invocation of the deferred function evaluates <tt><i>INVOKE</i>(std::move(g), std::move(xyz))</tt> 
where <tt>g</tt> is the stored value of <tt><i>DECAY_COPY</i>(std::forward&lt;F>(f))</tt> and <tt>xyz</tt> is
the stored copy of <tt><i>DECAY_COPY</i>(std::forward&lt;Args>(args))...</tt>. <ins>Any return value is stored as the 
result in the shared state. Any exception propagated from the execution of the deferred function is stored as the 
exceptional result in the shared state.</ins> The shared state is not made ready until the function has completed. 
The first call to a non-timed waiting function (30.6.4 [futures.state]) 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>(std::move(g), std::move(xyz))</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 policy value of 
<tt>launch::async | launch::deferred</tt>, implementations should defer invocation or the selection of the <tt>policy</tt> 
when no more concurrency can be effectively exploited. &mdash; <i>end note</i>]
</p></li>
</ul>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2188"></a>2188. Reverse iterator does not fully support targets that overload <tt>operator&amp;</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 24.5.1.3.5 [reverse.iter.opref] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Alisdair Meredith <b>Opened:</b> 2012-09-23 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#reverse.iter.opref">issues</a> in [reverse.iter.opref].</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 specification for <tt>reverse_iterator::operator-></tt>
returns the address of the object yielded by dereferencing
with <tt>operatator*</tt>, but does not have the usual
wording about returning the true address of the object.  As
<tt>reverse_iterator</tt> requires the adapted iterator have
at least the bidirectional iterator category, we know that
the returned reference is a true reference, and not a proxy,
hence we can use <tt>std::addressof</tt> on the reference
to get the right answer.
</p>
<p>
This will most likely show itself as an issue with a <tt>list</tt>
or <tt>vector</tt> of a type with such an overloaded operator,
where algorithms are likely to work with a forward iteration, but
not with reverse iteration.
</p>


<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>
Revise 24.5.1.3.5 [reverse.iter.opref] p1, as indicated:
</p>
<p>
<i>Returns:</i> <ins>The true address of the object returned by </ins>
<tt><del>&amp;(</del>operator*()<del>)</del></tt>.
</p>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2189"></a>2189. Throwing <tt>swap</tt> breaks unordered containers' state</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.2.5.1 [unord.req.except] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Alisdair Meredith <b>Opened:</b> 2012-09-23 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
The hash functor and key-comparison functor of unordered containers are allowed to throw on <tt>swap</tt>.
</p>
<p>
23.2.5.1 [unord.req.except]p3 "For unordered associative containers, no <tt>swap</tt> function throws
an exception unless that exception is thrown by the swap of the container's Hash or Pred object (if any)."
</p>
<p>
In such a case we must offer the basic exception safety guarantee, where both objects are left in valid
but unspecified states, and no resources are leaked.  This yields a corrupt, un-usable container if the
first <tt>swap</tt> succeeds, but the second fails by throwing, as the functors form a matched pair.
</p>
<p>
So our basic scenario is first, swap the allocators if the allocators propagate on swap, according to
<tt>allocator_traits</tt>.  Next we swap the pointers to our internal hash table data structures, so that
they match the allocators that allocated them.  (Typically, this operation cannot throw).  Now our containers
are back in a safely destructible state if an exception follows.
</p>
<p>
Next, let's say we swap the hash functor, and that throws.  We have a corrupt data structure, in that the
buckets are not correctly indexed by the correct functors, lookups will give unpredicatable results etc.
We can safely restore a usable state by forcibly clearing each container - which does not leak resources
and leaves us with two (empty but) usable containers.
</p>
<p>
Now let us assume that the hasher swap succeeds.  Next we swap the equality comparator functor, and this
too could throw. The important point to bear in mind is that these two functors form an important pairing
- two objects that compare equal by the equality functor must also hash to the same value.  If we swap
one without the other, we most likely leave the container in an unusable state, even if we clear out all
elements.
</p>
<p>
1. A colleague pointed out that the solution for this is to dynamically allocate the two functors, and then
we need only swap pointers, which is not a throwing operation.  And if we don't want to allocate on default
construction (a common QoI request), we might consider moving to a dynamically allocated functors whenever
<tt>swap</tt> is called, or on first insertion.  Of course, allocating memory in <tt>swap</tt> is a whole
new can of worms, but this does not really sound like the design we had intended.
</p>

<p>
2. The simplest option is to say that we do not support hasher or equality functors that throw on ADL
<tt>swap</tt>.  Note that the requirement is simply to not throw, rather than to be explicitly
marked as <tt>noexcept</tt>.  Throwing functors are allowed, so long as we never use values that
would actually manifest a throw when used in an unordered container.
</p>

<p>
Pablo went on to give me several more options, to be sure we have a full set to consider:
</p>
<p>
3. Disallow one or the other functor from throwing.  In that case, the 
possibly-throwing functor must be swapped first, then the other functor, 
the allocator, and the data pointer(s) afterwards (in any order -- there 
was a TC that allocator assignment and swap may not throw if the 
corresponding propagation trait is true.). Of course, the question 
becomes: which functor is allowed to throw and which one is not?
</p>
<p>
4. Require that any successful functor <tt>swap</tt> be reliably reversible.  
This is very inventive.  I know of no other place in the standard where 
such a requirement is stated, though I have occasionally wanted such a 
guarantee.
</p>
<p>
5. Allow a failed swap to leave the containers in a state where future 
insertions may fail for reasons other than is currently allowed.  
Specifically, if the hash and equality functors are out of sync, all 
insertions will fail.  Presumably some "incompletely swapped" exception 
would be thrown.  This is "slightly" inventive, although people have been 
discussing "radioactive" states for a while.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Open.
</p>



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






<hr>
<h3><a name="2191"></a>2191. Incorrect specification of <tt>match_results(match_results&amp;&amp;)</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 28.10.1 [re.results.const] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Pete Becker <b>Opened:</b> 2012-10-02 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#re.results.const">active issues</a> in [re.results.const].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#re.results.const">issues</a> in [re.results.const].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
28.10.1 [re.results.const]/3: "Move-constructs an object of class <tt>match_results</tt> satisfying the same 
postconditions as Table 141."
</p>
<p>
Table 141 lists various member functions and says that their results should be the results of the corresponding member 
function calls on <tt>m</tt>. But <tt>m</tt> has been moved from, so the actual requirement ought to be based on the 
value that <tt>m</tt> had <em>before</em> the move construction, not on <tt>m</tt> itself.
</p>
<p>
In addition to that, the requirements for the copy constructor should refer to Table 141.
<p/>
<u>Ganesh</u>:
<p/>
Also, the requirements for move-assignment should refer to Table 141. Further it seems as if in Table 141 all phrases of
"for all integers <tt>n &lt; m.size()</tt>" should be replaced by "for all <em>unsigned</em> integers 
<tt>n &lt; m.size()</tt>".
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2192"></a>2192. Validity and return type of <tt>std::abs(0u)</tt> is unclear</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> 2012-10-02 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</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>
In C++03 the following two programs are invalid:
</p>
<ol style="list-style-type:upper-alpha"><li>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;cmath&gt;

int main() {
  std::abs(0u);
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;cstdlib&gt;

int main() {
  std::abs(0u);
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>
<p>
because none of the <tt>std::abs()</tt> overloads is a best match.
</p>
<p>
In C++11 the additional "sufficient overload" rule from 26.8 [c.math] p11 (see also LWG
<a href="lwg-defects.html#2086">2086</a>) can be read to be applicable to the <tt>std::abs()</tt> overloads as well, which
can lead to the following possible conclusions:
<p/>
<ol>
<li><p>The program</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;type_traits&gt;
#include &lt;cmath&gt;

static_assert(std::is_same&lt;decltype(std::abs(0u)), double&gt;(), "Oops");

int main() {
  std::abs(0u); // Calls std::abs(double)
}
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
is required to be well-formed, because of sub-bullet 2 ("[..] or an integer type [..]") of 
26.8 [c.math] p11 (Note that the current resolution of LWG <a href="lwg-defects.html#2086">2086</a> doesn't
fix this problem).
</p>
</li>
<li><p>Any translation unit including both <tt>&lt;cmath&gt;</tt> and <tt>&lt;cstdlib&gt;</tt>
might be ill-formed because of two conflicting requirements for the return type of the overload
<tt>std::abs(int)</tt>.
</p>
</li>
</ol>
</p>

<p>
It seems to me that at least the second outcome is not intended, personally I think that both
are unfortunate: In contrast to all other floating-point functions explicitly listed in sub-clause 
26.8 [c.math], the <tt>abs</tt> overloads have a special and well-defined meaning for 
signed integers and thus have explicit overloads returning a signed integral type. I also believe that 
there is no problem accepting that <tt>std::fabs(0u)</tt> is well-defined with return type <tt>double</tt>, 
because the leading 'f' clearly signals that we have a floating point function here. But the expected 
return type of <tt>std::abs(0u)</tt> seems less than clear to me. A very reasonable answer could be that 
this has the same type as its argument type, alternatively it could be a reasonably chosen signed 
integer type, or a floating point type. It should also be noted, that the corresponding
"generic type function" rule set from C99/C1x in 7.25 p2+3 is restricted to the floating-point functions
from <tt>&lt;math.h&gt;</tt> and <tt>&lt;complex.h&gt;</tt>, so cannot be applied to the <tt>abs</tt>
functions (but to the <tt>fabs</tt> functions!).
<p/>
Selecting a signed integer return type for unsigned input values can also problematic: The directly
corresponding signed integer type would give half of the possible argument values an implementation-defined
result value. Choosing the first signed integer value that can represent all positive values would solve this
problem for <tt>unsigned int</tt>, but there would be no clear answer for the input type <tt>std::uintmax_t</tt>.
</p>
<p>
Based on this it seems to me that the C++03 state in regard to unsigned integer values was the better
situation, alerting the user that this code is ambigious at the moment (This might be change with different core-language
rules as described in N3387).
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3376.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change 26.8 [c.math] p11 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><p>
-11- Moreover<ins>, except for the <tt>abs</tt> functions</ins>, there shall be additional overloads sufficient to ensure:
<p/>
[&hellip;]
</p></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2193"></a>2193. Default constructors for standard library containers are explicit</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23 [containers] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#EWG">EWG</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Richard Smith <b>Opened:</b> 2012-10-04 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#containers">issues</a> in [containers].</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Most (all?) of the standard library containers have explicit default constructors. Consequently:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
std::set&lt;int&gt; s1 = { 1, 2 }; // ok
std::set&lt;int&gt; s2 = { 1 }; // ok
std::set&lt;int&gt; s3 = {}; // ill-formed, copy-list-initialization selected an explicit constructor
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
Note that Clang + libc++ rejects the declaration of <tt>s3</tt> for this reason. This cannot possibly match the intent.
</p>
<p>
Suggested fix: apply this transformation throughout the standard library:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>set() : set(Compare()) {}</ins>
explicit set(const Compare&amp; comp<del> = Compare()</del>,
             const Allocator&amp; = Allocator());
</pre></blockquote>

<p><i>[
2012-10-06: Daniel adds concrete wording.
]</i></p>


<p><i>[2012, Portland: Move to Open]</i></p>

<p>
This may be an issue better solved by a core language tweak.  Throw the issue over to EWG and see whether they
believe the issue is better resolved in Core or Library.
</p>

<p>
AJM suggest we spawn a new status of 'EWG' to handle such issues - and will move this issue appropriately when
the software can record such resolutions.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3376.</p>

<p>The more general criterion for performing the suggested transformation was: Any type with an initializer-list 
constructor that also has an explicit default constructor.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change class template <tt>basic_string</tt> synopsis, 21.4 [basic.string] p5 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>basic_string() : basic_string(Allocator()) {}</ins>
explicit basic_string(const Allocator&amp; a<del> = Allocator()</del>);
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 21.4.2 [string.cons] before p1 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
explicit basic_string(const Allocator&amp; a<del> = Allocator()</del>);
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change class template <tt>deque</tt> synopsis, 23.3.3.1 [deque.overview] p2 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>deque() : deque(Allocator()) {}</ins>
explicit deque(const Allocator&amp;<del> = Allocator()</del>);
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 23.3.3.2 [deque.cons] before p1 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
explicit deque(const Allocator&amp;<del> = Allocator()</del>);
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change class template <tt>forward_list</tt> synopsis, 23.3.4.1 [forwardlist.overview] p3 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>forward_list() : forward_list(Allocator()) {}</ins>
explicit forward_list(const Allocator&amp;<del> = Allocator()</del>);
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 23.3.4.2 [forwardlist.cons] before p1 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
explicit forward_list(const Allocator&amp;<del> = Allocator()</del>);
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change class template <tt>list</tt> synopsis, 23.3.5.1 [list.overview] p2 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>list() : list(Allocator()) {}</ins>
explicit list(const Allocator&amp;<del> = Allocator()</del>);
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 23.3.5.2 [list.cons] before p1 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
explicit list(const Allocator&amp;<del> = Allocator()</del>);
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change class template <tt>vector</tt> synopsis, 23.3.6.1 [vector.overview] p2 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>vector() : vector(Allocator()) {}</ins>
explicit vector(const Allocator&amp;<del> = Allocator()</del>);
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 23.3.6.2 [vector.cons] before p1 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
explicit vector(const Allocator&amp;<del> = Allocator()</del>);
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change class template specialization <tt>vector&lt;bool&gt;</tt> synopsis, 23.3.7 [vector.bool] p1 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>vector() : vector(Allocator()) {}</ins>
explicit vector(const Allocator&amp;<del> = Allocator()</del>);
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change class template <tt>map</tt> synopsis, 23.4.4.1 [map.overview] p2 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>map() : map(Compare()) {}</ins>
explicit map(const Compare&amp; comp<del> = Compare()</del>,
             const Allocator&amp; = Allocator());
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 23.4.4.2 [map.cons] before p1 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
explicit map(const Compare&amp; comp<del> = Compare()</del>,
             const Allocator&amp; = Allocator());
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change class template <tt>multimap</tt> synopsis, 23.4.5.1 [multimap.overview] p2 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>multimap() : multimap(Compare()) {}</ins>
explicit multimap(const Compare&amp; comp<del> = Compare()</del>,
                  const Allocator&amp; = Allocator());
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 23.4.5.2 [multimap.cons] before p1 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
explicit multimap(const Compare&amp; comp<del> = Compare()</del>,
                  const Allocator&amp; = Allocator());
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change class template <tt>set</tt> synopsis, 23.4.6.1 [set.overview] p2 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>set() : set(Compare()) {}</ins>
explicit set(const Compare&amp; comp<del> = Compare()</del>,
             const Allocator&amp; = Allocator());
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 23.4.6.2 [set.cons] before p1 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
explicit set(const Compare&amp; comp<del> = Compare()</del>,
             const Allocator&amp; = Allocator());
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change class template <tt>multiset</tt> synopsis, 23.4.7.1 [multiset.overview] p2 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>multiset() : multiset(Compare()) {}</ins>
explicit multiset(const Compare&amp; comp<del> = Compare()</del>,
                  const Allocator&amp; = Allocator());
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 23.4.7.2 [multiset.cons] before p1 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
explicit multiset(const Compare&amp; comp<del> = Compare()</del>,
                  const Allocator&amp; = Allocator());
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change class template <tt>unordered_map</tt> synopsis, 23.5.4.1 [unord.map.overview] p3 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>unordered_map() : unordered_map(<i>see below</i>) {}</ins>
explicit unordered_map(size_type n<del> = <i>see below</i></del>,
                       const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
                       const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
                       const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 23.5.4.2 [unord.map.cnstr] before p1 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>unordered_map() : unordered_map(<i>see below</i>) {}</ins>
explicit unordered_map(size_type n<del> = <i>see below</i></del>,
                       const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
                       const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
                       const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change class template <tt>unordered_multimap</tt> synopsis, 23.5.5.1 [unord.multimap.overview] p3 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>unordered_multimap() : unordered_multimap(<i>see below</i>) {}</ins>
explicit unordered_multimap(size_type n<del> = <i>see below</i></del>,
                            const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
                            const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
                            const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 23.5.5.2 [unord.multimap.cnstr] before p1 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>unordered_multimap() : unordered_multimap(<i>see below</i>) {}</ins>
explicit unordered_multimap(size_type n<del> = <i>see below</i></del>,
                            const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
                            const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
                            const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change class template <tt>unordered_set</tt> synopsis, 23.5.6.1 [unord.set.overview] p3 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>unordered_set() : unordered_set(<i>see below</i>) {}</ins>
explicit unordered_set(size_type n<del> = <i>see below</i></del>,
                       const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
                       const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
                       const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 23.5.6.2 [unord.set.cnstr] before p1 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>unordered_set() : unordered_set(<i>see below</i>) {}</ins>
explicit unordered_set(size_type n<del> = <i>see below</i></del>,
                       const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
                       const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
                       const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change class template <tt>unordered_multiset</tt> synopsis, 23.5.7.1 [unord.multiset.overview] p3 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>unordered_multiset() : unordered_multiset(<i>see below</i>) {}</ins>
explicit unordered_multiset(size_type n<del> = <i>see below</i></del>,
                            const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
                            const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
                            const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Change 23.5.7.2 [unord.multiset.cnstr] before p1 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<ins>unordered_multiset() : unordered_multiset(<i>see below</i>) {}</ins>
explicit unordered_multiset(size_type n<del> = <i>see below</i></del>,
                            const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
                            const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
                            const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());
</pre></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2194"></a>2194. Impossible container requirements for adaptor types</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.6 [container.adaptors] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Sebastian Mach <b>Opened:</b> 2012-10-05 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#container.adaptors">issues</a> in [container.adaptors].</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>stack</tt> class template does not have an member type <tt>iterator</tt>, and therefore instantiations do not 
meet the general container requirements as described in 23.2.1 [container.requirements.general]. But 
23.6.1 [container.adaptors.general] p1 says:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
The headers <tt>&lt;queue&gt;</tt> and <tt>&lt;stack&gt;</tt> define the container adaptors <tt>queue</tt>, 
<tt>priority_queue</tt>, and <tt>stack</tt>. These container adaptors meet the requirements for sequence containers.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
Since sequence containers is a subset of general containers, this imposes requirements on the container adaptors that
are not satisfied.
</p>
<p>
<u>Daniel Kr&uuml;gler</u>: The wording change was performed as an editorial reorganization as requested
by <a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2011/n3296.html#GB116">GB 116</a> occuring first in
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2011/n3242.pdf">N3242</a>, as a side-effect it 
does now make the previous implicit C++03 classification to [lib.sequences]/1 more obvious. As the NB comment
noticed, the adaptors really are not sequences nor containers, so this wording needs to be fixed.
The most simple way to realize that is to strike the offending sentence.
</p>

<p><i>[
Daniel adds concrete wording.
]</i></p>




<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3376.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change 23.6.1 [container.adaptors.general] p1 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><p>
-1- The headers <tt>&lt;queue&gt;</tt> and <tt>&lt;stack&gt;</tt> define the container adaptors <tt>queue</tt>, 
<tt>priority_queue</tt>, and <tt>stack</tt>. <del>These container adaptors meet the requirements for sequence containers.</del>
</p></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2195"></a>2195. Missing constructors for <tt>match_results</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 28.10 [re.results] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2012-10-06 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#re.results">issues</a> in [re.results].</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 requirement expressed in 28.10 [re.results] p2
</p>
<blockquote><p>
The class template <tt>match_results</tt> shall satisfy the requirements of an allocator-aware container and of a
sequence container, as specified in 23.2.3 [sequence.reqmts], except that only operations defined for 
const-qualified sequence containers are supported.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
can be read to require the existence of the described constructors from as well, but they do not exist in the
synopsis. 
<p/>
The missing sequence constructors are: 
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
match_results(initializer_list&lt;value_type&gt;);
match_results(size_type, const value_type&amp;);
template&lt;class InputIterator&gt; match_results(InputIterator, InputIterator);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
The missing allocator-aware container constructors are:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
match_results(const match_results&amp;, const Allocator&amp;);
match_results(match_results&amp;&amp;, const Allocator&amp;);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
It should be clarified, whether (a) constructors are an exception of above mentioned operations or (b) whether
at least some of them (like those accepting a <tt>match_results</tt> value and an allocator) should be added.
<p/>
As visible in several places of the standard (including the core language), constructors seem usually to be considered 
as "operations" and they certainly can be invoked for const-qualified objects.
<p/>
The below given proposed resolution applies only the minimum necessary fix, i.e. it excludes constructors from
above requirement. 
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3376.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change 28.10 [re.results] p2 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><p>
The class template <tt>match_results</tt> shall satisfy the requirements of an allocator-aware container and of a
sequence container, as specified in 23.2.3 [sequence.reqmts], except that only operations defined for 
const-qualified sequence containers <ins>that are not constructors</ins> are supported.
</p></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2198"></a>2198. <tt>max_load_factor(z)</tt> makes no strong guarantees, but bans useful behavior</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.2.5 [unord.req] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Alisdair Meredith <b>Opened:</b> 2012-10-09 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#unord.req">active issues</a> in [unord.req].</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#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
The user cannot specify a <tt>max_load_factor</tt> for their unordered container
at construction, it must be supplied after the event, when the container is
potentially not empty.  The contract for this method is deliberately vague, not
guaranteeing to use the value supplied by the user, and any value actually used
will be used as a ceiling that the container will <i>attempt</i> to respect.
</p>
<p>
The only guarantee we have is that, if user requests a <tt>max_load_factor</tt>
that is less than the current <tt>load_factor</tt>, then the operation will take
constant time, thus outlawing an implementation that chooses to rehash and so
preserve as a class invariant that <tt>load_factor &lt; max_load_factor</tt>.
</p>
<p>
Reasonable options conforming to the standard include ignoring the user's request
if the requested value is too low, or deferring the rehash to the next <tt>insert</tt>
operation and allowing the container to have a strange state (wrt <tt>max_load_factor</tt>)
until then - and there is still the question of rehashing if the next <tt>insert</tt>
is for a duplicate key in a unique container.
</p>
<p>
Given the deliberate vagueness of the current wording, to support a range of reasonable
(but not <i>perfect</i>) behaviors, it is not clear why the equally reasonable rehash
to restore the constraint should be outlawed.  It is not thought that this is a performance
critical operation, where users will be repeatedly setting low load factors on populated
containers, in a tight or (less unlikely) an instant response scenario.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Open.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair to provide wording.
</p>



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






<hr>
<h3><a name="2199"></a>2199. unordered containers are required to have an initial max load factor of 1.0</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.2.5 [unord.req] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Alisdair Meredith <b>Opened:</b> 2012-10-09 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#unord.req">active issues</a> in [unord.req].</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#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
The default constructor, allocator-aware constructor, and range-based constructors
for the unordered containers do not offer a means to control the initial
<tt>max_load_factor</tt>, so the standard mandates the value 1.0.  This seems overly
restrictive, as there is plenty of research suggesting a value between 0.5 and 1.0
is more often optimal for unique-key containers, and perhaps a slightly higher
value might be appropriate for multi-containers.
</p>
<p>
Rather than guess at the appropriate <tt>max_load_factor</tt>, it seems reasonable
that the standard should allow vendors to pick a value at their discretion, with
perhaps a note of advice.  It is less clear whether the default value should be
implementation-defined or unspecified, given the ease of a user determining this
by querying this attribute immediately after construction.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Open.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair to provide wording.
</p>
<p>
Marshall: It seems to me that what you really want is to be able to pass a max load factor in the
constructor, but that's a different issue.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair agrees in principle, but concerned with adding yet more constructors to these classes.
</p>



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






<hr>
<h3><a name="2201"></a>2201. Missing macro entries from C standard library</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> C.2 [diff.library] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Kevin McCarty <b>Opened:</b> 2012-02-03 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#diff.library">issues</a> in [diff.library].</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 seems that in C.2 [diff.library], Table 150 the following macros from 18.3.3 [c.limits], Table 31 
are missing:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
LLONG_MIN 
LLONG_MAX
ULLONG_MAX
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
In addition in C.2 [diff.library], Table 150 the following macros from 18.3.3 [c.limits], Table 32 
are missing:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
DECIMAL_DIG 
FLT_EVAL_METHOD
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
Furtheron it seems that in C.2 [diff.library], Table 149/150 further macros are missing as well, e.g. 
<tt>HUGE_VALF</tt>, <tt>INFINITY</tt>, etc.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2202"></a>2202. Missing allocator support by <tt>async</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.6.8 [futures.async] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Detlef Vollmann <b>Opened:</b> 2012-10-19 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</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>
<tt>promise</tt>, <tt>packaged_task</tt>, and <tt>async</tt> are the only
places where a shared state is actually supposed to be allocated. Accordingly,
<tt>promise</tt> and <tt>packaged_task</tt> are "allocator-aware". But
function template <tt>async</tt> provides no way to provide an allocator.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2204"></a>2204. <tt>reverse_iterator</tt> should not require a second copy of the base iterator</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 24.5.1.3.4 [reverse.iter.op.star] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> David Abrahams <b>Opened:</b> 2012-10-30 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</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 note in 24.5.1.3.4 [reverse.iter.op.star]/2:
</p>
<blockquote>
 [ <i>Note</i>: This operation must use an auxiliary member variable rather than a
 temporary variable to avoid returning a reference that persists beyond the
 lifetime of its associated iterator. (See 24.2.) &mdash;<i>end note</i> ]
</blockquote>
<p>
is incorrect because such iterator implementations are ruled out by
24.2.5 [forward.iterators]/6, where it says:
</p>
<blockquote>
 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.
</blockquote>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>
Strike the note, 24.5.1.3.4 [reverse.iter.op.star]/2:
</p>

<blockquote>
 <del>[ <i>Note</i>: This operation must use an auxiliary member variable rather than a
 temporary variable to avoid returning a reference that persists beyond the
 lifetime of its associated iterator. (See 24.2.) &mdash;<i>end note</i> ]</del>
</blockquote>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2205"></a>2205. Problematic postconditions of <tt>regex_match</tt> and <tt>regex_search</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 28.11.2 [re.alg.match], 28.11.3 [re.alg.search] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Pete Becker <b>Opened:</b> 2012-10-24 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</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 142 lists post-conditions on the <tt>match_results</tt> object when a call to <tt>regex_match</tt> succeeds. 
<tt>regex_match</tt> is required to match the entire target sequence. The post-condition for <tt>m[0].matched</tt> 
is "true if a full match was found." Since these are conditions for a successful search which is, by definition, 
a full match, the post-condition should be simply "true".
</p>
<p>
There's an analogous probem in Table 143: the condition for <tt>m[0].matched</tt> is "true if a match was found, 
false otherwise." But Table 143 gives post-conditions for a successful match, so the condition should be simply 
"true".
</p>
<p>
Furthermore, they have explicit requirements for <tt>m[0].first</tt>, <tt>m[0].second</tt>, and <tt>m[0].matched</tt>. 
They also have requirements for the other elements of <tt>m</tt>, described as <tt>m[n].first</tt>, <tt>m[n].second</tt>, 
and <tt>m[n].matched</tt>, in each case qualifying the value of <tt>n</tt> as "for <tt>n &lt; m.size()</tt>". Since 
there is an explicit description for <tt>n == 0</tt>, this qualification should be "for <tt>0 &lt; n &lt; m.size()</tt>" 
in all 6 places.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3376.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change Table 142 as indicated:</p>

<table border="1">
<caption>Table 142 &mdash; Effects of <tt>regex_match</tt> algorithm</caption>
<tr>
<th>Element</th>
<th>Value</th>
</tr> 

<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center">
<tt>&hellip;</tt>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>m[0].first</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>first</tt>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>m[0].second</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>last</tt>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>m[0].matched</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>true</tt> <del>if a full match was found.</del>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>m[n].first</tt>
</td>
<td>
For all integers <tt><ins>0 &lt;</ins> n &lt; m.size()</tt>, the start of the sequence
that matched sub-expression <tt>n</tt>.<br/> 
Alternatively, if subexpression <tt>n</tt> did not participate in the match, then <tt>last</tt>.
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>m[n].second</tt>
</td>
<td>
For all integers <tt><ins>0 &lt;</ins> n &lt; m.size()</tt>, the end of the sequence that
matched sub-expression <tt>n</tt>.<br/> 
Alternatively, if sub-expression <tt>n</tt> did not participate in the match, then <tt>last</tt>.
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>m[n].matched</tt>
</td>
<td>
For all integers <tt><ins>0 &lt;</ins> n &lt; m.size()</tt>, <tt>true</tt> if sub-expression 
<tt>n</tt> participated in the match, <tt>false</tt> otherwise.
</td>
</tr>

</table>
</li>

<li><p>Change Table 143 as indicated:</p>

<table border="1">
<caption>Table 143 &mdash; Effects of <tt>regex_search</tt> algorithm</caption>
<tr>
<th>Element</th>
<th>Value</th>
</tr> 

<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center">
<tt>&hellip;</tt>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>m[0].first</tt>
</td>
<td>
The start of the sequence of characters that matched the regular expression
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>m[0].second</tt>
</td>
<td>
The end of the sequence of characters that matched the regular expression
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>m[0].matched</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>true</tt> <del>if a match was found, and false otherwise.</del>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>m[n].first</tt>
</td>
<td>
For all integers <tt><ins>0 &lt;</ins> n &lt; m.size()</tt>, the start of the sequence
that matched sub-expression <tt>n</tt>.<br/> 
Alternatively, if subexpression <tt>n</tt> did not participate in the match, then <tt>last</tt>.
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>m[n].second</tt>
</td>
<td>
For all integers <tt><ins>0 &lt;</ins> n &lt; m.size()</tt>, the end of the sequence that
matched sub-expression <tt>n</tt>.<br/> 
Alternatively, if sub-expression <tt>n</tt> did not participate in the match, then <tt>last</tt>.
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>m[n].matched</tt>
</td>
<td>
For all integers <tt><ins>0 &lt;</ins> n &lt; m.size()</tt>, <tt>true</tt> if sub-expression 
<tt>n</tt> participated in the match, <tt>false</tt> otherwise.
</td>
</tr>

</table>
</li>

</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2206"></a>2206. Inaccuracy in <tt>initializer_list</tt> constructor requirements</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.2.3 [sequence.reqmts], 23.2.4 [associative.reqmts], 23.2.5 [unord.req], 26.5.1.2 [rand.req.seedseq] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jeffrey Yasskin <b>Opened:</b> 2012-10-21 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#sequence.reqmts">issues</a> in [sequence.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>
In 23.2.3 [sequence.reqmts] p3, we have "<tt>il</tt> designates an object of type
<tt>initializer_list&lt;value_type&gt;</tt>", and then several functions that take
'<tt>il</tt>' as an argument. However, an expression like <tt>{1, 2, 'a'}</tt> is <em>not</em>
an object of type <tt>initializer_list&lt;int&gt;</tt> unless it's used to initialize
an explicitly-typed variable of that type. I believe we want:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
std::vector&lt;int&gt; v;
v = {1, 2, 'a'};
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
to compile portably, so we should say something different when defining '<tt>il</tt>'. The 
same phrasing happens in 23.2.4 [associative.reqmts], 23.2.5 [unord.req], and 
26.5.1.2 [rand.req.seedseq].
<p/>
This may just be an editorial issue because the actual class synopses declare the functions 
to take <tt>initializer_list&lt;exact_type&gt;</tt>.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Open.
</p>
<p>
This is definitely not NAD
</p>
<p>
Should copy the suggested wording as the proposed resolution.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2208"></a>2208. <tt>std::reverse_iterator</tt> should be a literal type</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 24.5.1 [reverse.iterators] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jeffrey Yasskin <b>Opened:</b> 2012-10-30 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#reverse.iterators">issues</a> in [reverse.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>
<tt>std::reverse_iterator::reverse_iterator(Iterator)</tt> should be constexpr
so that other constexpr functions can return <tt>reverse_iterator</tt>s. Of the
other methods, the other constructors, <tt>base()</tt>, <tt>operator+</tt>, <tt>operator-</tt>,
<tt>operator[]</tt>, and the non-member operators can probably also be
<tt>constexpr</tt>.
<p/>
<tt>operator*</tt> cannot be constexpr because it involves an assignment to a
member variable. Discussion starting with c++std-lib-33282 indicated
that it would be useful to make reverse_iterator a literal type
despite this restriction on its use at compile time.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2212"></a>2212. <tt>tuple_size</tt> for <tt>const pair</tt> request <tt>&lt;tuple&gt;</tt> header</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.2 [utility] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Alisdair Meredith <b>Opened:</b> 2012-11-09 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#utility">issues</a> in [utility].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
The <tt>&lt;utility&gt;</tt> header declares sufficient of the tuple API to specialize
the necessary templates for <tt>pair</tt>, notably <tt>tuple_size</tt> and
<tt>tuple_element</tt>.  However, it does not make available the partial specializations
that support cv-qualified template arguments, so while I can write the following after
including only <tt>&lt;utility&gt;</tt>: 
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;utility&gt;

using TestType = std::pair&lt;int, int&gt;;
static_assert(2 == std::tuple_size&lt;TestType&gt;(), "Pairs have two elements");
std::tuple_element&lt;0, TestType&gt;::type var{1};
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
the following may fail to compile unless I also include <tt>&lt;tuple&gt;</tt>:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;utility&gt;

using TestType = const std::pair&lt;int, int&gt;;
static_assert(2 == std::tuple_size&lt;TestType&gt;(), "Pairs have two elements");
std::tuple_element&lt;0, TestType&gt;::type var{1};
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
Note, however, that the latter <em>may</em> compile with some standard library implementations
but not others, leading to subtle portability issues.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Open.
</p>
<p>
Howard notes that we have the same issue with array, so any resolution should apply to that header too.
</p>



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






<hr>
<h3><a name="2213"></a>2213. Return value of <tt>std::regex_replace</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 28.11.4 [re.alg.replace] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Pete Becker <b>Opened:</b> 2012-11-08 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#re.alg.replace">active issues</a> in [re.alg.replace].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#re.alg.replace">issues</a> in [re.alg.replace].</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 28.11.4 [re.alg.replace], the first two variants of <tt>std::regex_replace</tt> take an output iterator named 
"out" as their first argument. Paragraph 2 of that section says that the functions return "out". When I first implemented 
this, many years ago, I wrote it to return the value of the output iterator after all the insertions (cf. <tt>std::copy</tt>), 
which seems like the most useful behavior. But looking at the requirement now, it like the functions should return the 
original value of "out" (i.e. they have to keep a copy of the iterator for no reason except to return it). Is that 
really what was intended?
</p>


<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3485.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Edit 28.11.4 [re.alg.replace] as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class OutputIterator, class BidirectionalIterator,
  class traits, class charT, class ST, class SA&gt;
OutputIterator
regex_replace(OutputIterator out, BidirectionalIterator first, BidirectionalIterator last,
  const basic_regex&lt;charT, traits&gt;&amp; e, const basic_string&lt;charT, ST, SA&gt;&amp; fmt,
  regex_constants::match_flag_type flags = regex_constants::match_default);
template &lt;class OutputIterator, class BidirectionalIterator,
  class traits, class charT&gt;
OutputIterator
regex_replace(OutputIterator out, BidirectionalIterator first, BidirectionalIterator last,
  const basic_regex&lt;charT, traits&gt;&amp; e, const charT* fmt,
  regex_constants::match_flag_type flags = regex_constants::match_default);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-1- <i>Effects</i>: Constructs a <tt>regex_iterator</tt> object <tt>i</tt> as if by 
<tt>regex_iterator&lt;BidirectionalIterator, charT, traits&gt; i(first, last, e, flags)</tt>, 
and uses <tt>i</tt> to enumerate through all of the matches <tt>m</tt> of type 
<tt>match_results&lt;BidirectionalIterator&gt;</tt> that occur within the sequence <tt>[first, last)</tt>. 
If no such matches are found and <tt>!(flags &amp; regex_constants ::format_no_copy)</tt> then calls
<tt><ins>out = </ins>std::copy(first, last, out)</tt>. If any matches are found then, for each such match, if 
<tt>!(flags &amp; regex_constants::format_no_copy)</tt>, calls <tt><ins>out = </ins>std::copy(m.prefix().first, 
m.prefix().second, out)</tt>, and then calls <tt><ins>out = </ins>m.format(out, fmt, flags)</tt> 
for the first form of the function and <tt><ins>out = </ins>m.format(out, fmt, fmt + 
char_traits&lt;charT&gt;::length(fmt), flags)</tt> for the second. Finally, if such a match is found 
and <tt>!(flags &amp; regex_constants ::format_no_copy)</tt>, calls 
<tt><ins>out = </ins>std::copy(last_m.suffix().first, last_m.suffix().second, out)</tt> where 
<tt>last_m</tt> is a copy of the last match found. If <tt>flags &amp; regex_constants::format_first_only</tt> 
is non-zero then only the first match found is replaced.
<p/>
-2- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>out</tt>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2214"></a>2214. Clarify <tt>basic_ios::init</tt> call restrictions</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 27.5.5.2 [basic.ios.cons] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Andrey Semashev <b>Opened:</b> 2012-11-09 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-15</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#basic.ios.cons">issues</a> in [basic.ios.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>
There is an ambiguity in how <tt>std::basic_ios::init</tt> method (27.5.5.2 [basic.ios.cons]) 
can be used in the derived class. The Standard only specify the state of the <tt>basic_ios</tt> 
object after the call completes. However, in <tt>basic_ios</tt> default constructor description 
(27.5.5.2 [basic.ios.cons]) there is this sentence:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Effects</i>: Constructs an object of class <tt>basic_ios</tt> (27.5.3.7 [ios.base.cons]) 
leaving its member objects uninitialized. The object shall be initialized by calling <tt>basic_ios::init</tt> 
before its first use or before it is destroyed, whichever comes first; otherwise the behavior is undefined.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
This restriction hints that <tt>basic_ios::init</tt> should be called exactly
once before the object can be used or destroyed, because <tt>basic_ios::init</tt> 
may not know whether it was called before or not (i.e. whether its members are actually 
uninitialized or are initialized by the previous call to <tt>basic_ios::init</tt>). There 
is no such restriction in the <tt>basic_ios::init</tt> preconditions so it is not clear whether it is
allowed to call <tt>basic_ios::init</tt> multiple times or not.
<p/>
This problem has already affected publicly available implementations.
For example, Microsoft Visual C++ STL introduces a memory leak if
<tt>basic_ios::init</tt> is called multiple times, while GCC 4.7 and STLPort
reinitialize the <tt>basic_ios</tt> object correctly without memory leak or any
other undesired effects. There was a discussion of this issue on Boost
<a href="http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/235659">developers mailing list</a>, 
and there is a <a href="https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/boost-log/ticket/2#comment:4">test case 
that reproduces the problem</a>. The test case is actually a bug report for my Boost.Log library, 
which attempts to cache <tt>basic_ostream</tt>-derived objects internally to avoid expensive construction 
and destruction. My stream objects allowed resetting the stream buffer pointers the stream
is attached to, without requiring to destroy and construct the stream.
<p/>
My personal view of the problem and proposed resolution follows.
<p/>
While apparently the intent of <tt>basic_ios::init</tt> is to provide a way to
initialize <tt>basic_ios</tt> after default construction, I see no reason to
forbid it from being called multiple times to reinitialize the stream.
Furthermore, it is possible to implement a conforming <tt>basic_ios</tt> that
does not have this restriction.
<p/>
The quoted above section of the Standard that describes the effects of
the default constructor is misleading. The Standard does not mandate
any data members of <tt>basic_ios</tt> or <tt>ios_base</tt> (27.5.3 [ios.base]), which
it derives from. This means that the implementation is allowed to use
non-POD data members with default constructors that initialize the
members with particular default values. For example, in the case of
Microsoft Visual C++ STL the leaked memory is an <tt>std::locale</tt> instance
that is dynamically allocated during <tt>basic_ios::init</tt>, a raw pointer to
which is stored within ios_base. It is possible to store e.g. an
<tt>unique_ptr</tt> instead of a raw pointer as a member of <tt>ios_base</tt>, the smart
pointer will default initialize the underlying raw pointer on default
construction and automatically destroy the allocated object upon being
reset or destroyed, which would eliminate the leak and allow
<tt>basic_ios::init</tt> to be called multiple times. This leads to conclusion
that the default constructor of <tt>basic_ios</tt> cannot leave "its member
objects uninitialized" but instead performs default initialization of
the member objects, which would mean the same thing in case of POD types.
<p/>
However, I feel that restricting <tt>ios_base</tt> and <tt>basic_ios</tt> members to
non-POD types is not acceptable. Since multiple calls to <tt>basic_ios::init</tt> are 
not forbidden by the Standard, I propose to correct the <tt>basic_ios</tt> default 
constructor description so that it is allowed to destroy <tt>basic_ios</tt> object 
without calling <tt>basic_ios::init</tt>. This would imply that any raw members of 
<tt>basic_ios</tt> and <tt>ios_base</tt> should be initialized to values suitable for 
destruction (essentially, this means only initializing raw pointers to NULL). The new 
wording could look like this:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Effects</i>: Constructs an object of class <tt>basic_ios</tt> (27.5.3.7 [ios.base.cons])
initializing its member objects to unspecified state, only suitable for <tt>basic_ios</tt> destruction.
The object shall be initialized by calling <tt>basic_ios::init</tt> before its first use; otherwise 
the behavior is undefined.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
This would remove the hint that <tt>basic_ios::init</tt> must be called exactly
once. Also, this would remove the requirement for <tt>basic_ios::init</tt> to
be called at all before the destruction. This is also an important issue because 
the derived stream constructor may throw an exception before it manages to call 
<tt>basic_ios::init</tt> (for example, if the streambuf constructor throws), and 
in this case the <tt>basic_ios</tt> destructor has undefined behavior.
<p/>
To my mind, the described modification is sufficient to resolve the issue. But to 
emphasize the possibility to call <tt>basic_ios::init</tt> multiple times, a remark 
or a footnote for <tt>basic_ios::init</tt> postconditions could be added to explicitly 
state the semantics of calling it multiple times. The note could read as follows:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
The function can be called multiple times during the object lifetime. Each subsequent 
call reinitializes the object to the described in postconditions initial state.
</p></blockquote>


<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3485.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Edit 27.5.5.2 [basic.ios.cons] as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
basic_ios();
</pre>
<blockquote>
<p>
-2- <i>Effects</i>: Constructs an object of class <tt>basic_ios</tt> (27.5.3.7 [ios.base.cons]) 
<del>leaving its member objects uninitialized</del><ins>initializing its member objects to unspecified state, 
only suitable for <tt>basic_ios</tt> destruction</ins>. The object shall be initialized by calling 
<tt>basic_ios::init</tt> before its first use <del>or before it is destroyed, whichever comes first</del>; 
otherwise the behavior is undefined.
</p>
</blockquote>
<pre>
void init(basic_streambuf&lt;charT,traits&gt;* sb);
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
<i>Postconditions</i>: The postconditions of this function are indicated in Table 128.
<p/>
<ins>-?- <i>Remarks</i>: The function can be called multiple times during the object lifetime. Each subsequent 
call reinitializes the object to the described in postconditions initial state.</ins>
</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</li>
</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2215"></a>2215. (unordered) associative container functors should be <tt>CopyConstructible</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.2.4 [associative.reqmts], 23.2.5 [unord.req] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Alisdair Meredith <b>Opened:</b> 2012-11-14 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</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>
The requirements on the functors used to arrange elements in the various associative and
unordered containers are given by a set of expressions in tables 102 - Associative container
requirements, and 103 - Unordered associative container requirements.  In keeping with Library
convention these expressions make the minimal requirements necessary on their types.  For
example, we have the following 3 row extracts for the unordered containers:
</p>
<table>
<tr>
  <td>
    <b>Expression</b>
  </td>
  <td>
    <b>Assertion/note pre-/post-condition</b>
  </td>
</tr>

<tr>
  <td>
<pre>
<tt>X(n, hf, eq)</tt>
<tt>X a(n, hf, eq)</tt>
</pre>
  </td>
  <td>
    <i>Requires:</i> <tt>hasher</tt> and <tt>key_equal</tt> are <tt>CopyConstructible</tt>.
 </td>
</tr>

<tr>
  <td>
<pre>
<tt>X(n, hf)</tt>
<tt>X a(n, hf)</tt>
</pre>
  </td>
  <td>
    <i>Requires:</i> <tt>hasher</tt> is <tt>CopyConstructible</tt> and 
                  <tt>key_equal</tt> is <tt>DefaultConstructible</tt>.
 </td>
</tr>

<tr>
  <td>
<pre>
<tt>X(n)</tt>
<tt>X a(n)</tt>
</pre>
  </td>
  <td>
    <i>Requires:</i> <tt>hasher</tt> and <tt>key_equal</tt> are <tt>DefaultConstructible</tt>.
 </td>
</tr>
</table>

<p>
However, the signature for each class template requires that the functors must effectively be
<tt>CopyConstructible</tt> for each of these expressions:
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class Key,
          class T,
          class Hash  = hash&lt;Key>,
          class Pred  = std::equal_to&lt;Key>,
          class Allocator = std::allocator&lt;std::pair&lt;const Key, T> > >
class unordered_map
{
  <i>...</i>

  <i>// construct/destroy/copy</i>
  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());

  <i>...</i>
}
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
The letter of the standard can be honoured as long as implementors recognize
their freedom to split this one signature into multiple overloads, so that
the documented default arguments (requiring a <tt>CopyConstructible</tt> functor)
are not actually passed as default arguments.
</p>
<p>
As we look into the requirements for the copy constructor and copy-assignment
operator, the requirements are even more vague, as the explicit requirements on
the functors are not called out, other than saying that the functors are copied.
</p>
<p>
Must the functors be <tt>CopyAssignable</tt>? Or is <tt>CopyConstructible</tt>
sufficient in this case?  Do we require that the functors be <tt>Swappable</tt>
so that the copy-swap idiom can be deployed here?  Note that a type that is both
<tt>CopyConstructible</tt> and <tt>CopyAssignable</tt> is still not guaranteed to
be <tt>Swappable</tt> as the user may delete the <tt>swap</tt> function for their
type in their own namespace, which would be found via ADL.
</p>
<p>
Some clean-up of the requirements table looks necessary, to at least document the
assignment behavior.  In addition, we should have clear guidance on whether these
functors should always be <tt>CopyConstructible</tt>, as suggested by the class
template definitions, or if the requirement tables are correct and we should
explicitly split up the constructors in the (unordered) associative containers
to no longer use default (function) arguments to obtain their defaulted functors.
</p>
<p>
I recommend the simplest solution would be to always require that the functors
for (unorderd) associative containers be <tt>CopyConstructible</tt>, above the
requirements tables themselves, so that the issue need not be addressed within
the tables.  I suggest that the assignment operators for these containers add
the requirement that the functors be <tt>Swappable</tt>, rather than forwarding
the corresponding <tt>Assignable</tt> requirement.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Open.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair to propose wording.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2216"></a>2216. <tt>regex_replace(basic_string)</tt> allocator handling</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 28.11.4 [re.alg.replace] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jeffrey Yasskin <b>Opened:</b> 2012-11-26 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-29</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#re.alg.replace">active issues</a> in [re.alg.replace].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#re.alg.replace">issues</a> in [re.alg.replace].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class traits, class charT, class ST, class SA&gt;
  basic_string&lt;charT, ST, SA&gt;
  regex_replace(const basic_string&lt;charT, ST, SA&gt;&amp; s,
      const basic_regex&lt;charT, traits&gt;&amp; e,
      const charT* fmt,
      regex_constants::match_flag_type flags = 
	    regex_constants::match_default);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
and friends are documented as
</p>
<blockquote><p>
Constructs an empty string result of type <tt>basic_string&lt;charT, ST, SA&gt;</tt>
and calls <tt>regex_replace(back_inserter(result), s.begin(), s.end(), e, fmt, flags)</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
This appears to require the result to have a default-constructed
allocator, which isn't even possible for all allocator types. I
suspect the allocator should be copied from 's' instead. Possibly
there should be an additional defaulted argument to override the
allocator of the result.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2217"></a>2217. <tt>operator==(sub_match, string)</tt> slices on embedded <tt>'\0'</tt>s</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 28.9.2 [re.submatch.op] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jeffrey Yasskin <b>Opened:</b> 2012-11-26 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-11-29</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#re.submatch.op">issues</a> in [re.submatch.op].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class BiIter, class ST, class SA&gt;
  bool operator==(
    const basic_string&lt;
      typename iterator_traits&lt;BiIter&gt;::value_type, ST, SA&gt;&amp; lhs,
    const sub_match&lt;BiIter&gt;&amp; rhs);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
is specified as:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Returns</i>: <tt>rhs.compare(lhs.c_str()) == 0</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
This is odd because <tt>sub_match::compare(basic_string)</tt> is defined to
honor embedded <tt>'\0'</tt> characters. This could allow a <tt>sub_match</tt> to <tt>==</tt> or
<tt>!=</tt> a <tt>std::string</tt> unexpectedly.
</p>

<p><i>[Daniel:]</i></p>

<p>
This wording change was done intentionally as of LWG <a href="lwg-defects.html#1181">1181</a>, but the here mentioned slicing
effect was not considered at that time. It seems best to use another overload of compare to fix this problem:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Returns</i>: <tt>rhs.str().compare(0, rhs.length(), lhs.data(), lhs.size()) == 0</tt>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
or
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Returns</i>: <tt>rhs.compare(sub_match&lt;BiIter&gt;::string_type(lhs.data(), lhs.size())) == 0</tt>.
</p></blockquote>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2218"></a>2218. Unclear how containers use <tt>allocator_traits::construct()</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.2.1 [container.requirements.general] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2012-11-27 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#container.requirements.general">active issues</a> in [container.requirements.general].</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#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Firstly, 23.2.1 [container.requirements.general]/7 says a container's
allocator is used to obtain memory, but it isn't stated explicitly that the same 
allocator is used to construct and destroy elements, as opposed to a value-initialized 
allocator of the same type.
</p>
<p>
Secondly, 23.2.1 [container.requirements.general]/3 says elements "shall be
constructed using the <tt>allocator_traits&lt;allocator_type&gt;::construct</tt>
function and destroyed using the <tt>allocator_traits&lt;allocator_type&gt;::destroy</tt> function" and
23.2.1 [container.requirements.general]/13 defines <tt>CopyInsertable</tt> etc. in
terms of an allocator <tt>A</tt> which is identical to the container's <tt>allocator_type</tt>.
</p>
<p>
The intent of making <tt>construct()</tt> and <tt>destroy()</tt> function templates was
that containers would be permitted to use <tt>allocator_traits&lt;A&gt;::construct()</tt> instead of
<tt>allocator_traits&lt;allocator_type&gt;::construct()</tt>, where <tt>A</tt> is
<tt>allocator_traits&lt;allocator_type&gt;::rebind_alloc&lt;U&gt;</tt> for some other type
<tt>U</tt>.  This allows node-based containers to store an allocator of the right type for 
allocating nodes and to use the same object to construct elements in aligned storage within 
those nodes, avoiding rebinding and copying the stored allocator every time an element needs
to be constructed.
<p/>
It should be made clear that possibly-rebound copy of the container's allocator is used for object 
construction.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Open.
</p>
<p>
Jonathan: point 2 in the proposed resolution is definitely needed.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3485.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Edit 23.2.1 [container.requirements.general] paragraph 3:</p>
<blockquote><p>
For the components affected by this subclause that declare an <tt>allocator_type</tt>, objects stored in these
components shall be constructed using the <tt>allocator_traits&lt;allocator_type&gt;::<ins>rebind_alloc&lt;U&gt;::</ins>construct</tt> 
function and destroyed using the <tt>allocator_traits&lt;allocator_type&gt;::<ins>rebind_alloc&lt;U&gt;::</ins>destroy</tt> 
function (20.6.8.2 [allocator.traits.members])<ins>, where <tt>U</tt> is either <tt>allocator_type::value_type</tt> 
or an internal type used by the container</ins>. These functions are called only for the container's element type, 
not for internal types used by the container. [ <i>Note</i>: This means, for example, that a node-based container 
might need to construct nodes containing aligned buffers and call construct to place the element into the buffer. 
&mdash; <i>end note</i> ]
</p></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Edit 23.2.1 [container.requirements.general] paragraph 7:</p>
<blockquote><p>
[&hellip;] A copy of this allocator is used for any memory allocation <ins>and element construction</ins> performed, 
by these constructors and by all member functions, during the lifetime of each container object or until the allocator 
is replaced. [&hellip;]
</p></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Edit 23.2.1 [container.requirements.general] paragraph 13:</p>
<blockquote><p>
[&hellip;] Given <ins>an allocator type <tt>A</tt> and given</ins> a container type <tt>X</tt> having <del>an 
<tt>allocator_type</tt> identical to <tt>A</tt> and</del> a <tt>value_type</tt> identical to <tt>T</tt> 
<ins>and an <tt>allocator_type</tt> identical to <tt>allocator_traits&lt;A&gt;::rebind_alloc&lt;T&gt;</tt></ins> 
and given an lvalue <tt>m</tt> of type <tt>A</tt>, a pointer <tt>p</tt> 
of type <tt>T*</tt>, an expression <tt>v</tt> of type (possibly <tt>const</tt>) <tt>T</tt>, and an rvalue <tt>rv</tt> 
of type <tt>T</tt>, the following terms are defined.
<p/>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
[ <i>Note</i>: A container calls <tt>allocator_traits&lt;A&gt;::construct(m, p, args)</tt> to construct an element 
at <tt>p</tt> using <tt>args</tt><ins>, with <tt>m == get_allocator()</tt></ins>. The default construct in 
<tt>std::allocator</tt> will call <tt>::new((void*)p) T(args)</tt>, but specialized allocators may choose a 
different definition. &mdash; <i>end note</i> ]
</p></blockquote>
</li>

</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2219"></a>2219. <tt><i>INVOKE</i></tt>-ing a pointer to member with a <tt>reference_wrapper</tt> as the object expression</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.8.2 [func.require] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2012-11-28 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#func.require">issues</a> in [func.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>
The standard currently requires this to be invalid:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;functional&gt;

struct X { int i; } x;
auto f = &amp;X::i;
auto t1 = std::ref(x);
int i = std::mem_fn(f)(t1);
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
The call expression on the last line is equivalent to <tt><i>INVOKE</i>(f, std::ref(x))</tt> 
which according to 20.8.2 [func.require]p1 results in the invalid expression <tt>(*t1).*f</tt> 
because <tt>reference_wrapper&lt;X&gt;</tt> is neither an object of type <tt>X</tt> nor a reference 
to an object of type <tt>X</tt> nor a reference to an object of a type derived from <tt>X</tt>.
</p>
<p>
The same argument applies to pointers to member functions, and if they don't work with <tt>INVOKE</tt> 
it becomes harder to do all sorts of things such as:
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<tt>call_once(o, &amp;std::thread::join, std::ref(thr))</tt>
</p></blockquote>
<p>
or
</p>
<blockquote><p>
<tt>async(&amp;std::list&lt;int&gt;::sort, std::ref(list));</tt>
</p></blockquote>
<p>
The definition of <tt><i>INVOKE</i></tt> should be extended to handle reference wrappers.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Review.
</p>
<p>
The wording seems accurate, but verbose.  If possible, we would like to define the kind of thing being
specified so carefully as one of a number of potential language constructs in a single place.  It is
also possible that this clause <i>is</i> that single place.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-04-18, Bristol]</i></p>


<p>Jonathan comments:</p>

<p>In the proposed resolution in the first bullet <tt>(t1.*f)</tt> is not valid if <tt>t1</tt> is a
<tt>reference_wrapper</tt>, so we probably need a separate bullet to handle the
<tt>reference_wrapper</tt> case.</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3485.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Edit 20.8.2 [func.require]:</p>
<blockquote><p>
Define <tt><i>INVOKE</i>(f, t1, t2, ..., tN)</tt> as follows:
</p>
<ul>
<li><p>
<tt>(t1.*f)(t2, ..., tN)</tt> when <tt>f</tt> is a pointer to a member function of a class <tt>T</tt> and 
<tt>t1</tt> is an object of type <tt>T</tt> or a reference to an object of type <del><tt>T</tt> or a reference 
to an object of a type derived from <tt>T</tt></del> <ins><tt>U</tt> or an object of type <tt>reference_wrapper&lt;U&gt;</tt> 
or a reference to an object of type <tt>reference_wrapper&lt;U&gt;</tt> where <tt>U</tt> is either the type 
<tt>T</tt> or a type derived from <tt>T</tt></ins>;
</p>
</li>

<li><p>
<tt>((*t1).*f)(t2, ..., tN)</tt> when <tt>f</tt> is a pointer to a member function of a class <tt>T</tt> and 
<tt>t1</tt> is not one of the types described in the previous item;
</p></li>

<li><p> 
<tt>t1.*f</tt> when <tt>N == 1</tt> and <tt>f</tt> is a pointer to member data of a class <tt>T</tt> and <tt>t1</tt> 
is an object of type <tt>T</tt> or a reference to an object of type <del><tt>T</tt> or a reference to an object of a 
type derived from <tt>T</tt></del> <ins><tt>U</tt> or an object of type <tt>reference_wrapper&lt;U&gt;</tt> 
or a reference to an object of type <tt>reference_wrapper&lt;U&gt;</tt> where <tt>U</tt> is either the type 
<tt>T</tt> or a type derived from <tt>T</tt></ins>;
</p></li>

<li><p>
<tt>(*t1).*f</tt> when <tt>N == 1</tt> and <tt>f</tt> is a pointer to member data of a class <tt>T</tt> and <tt>t1</tt> 
is not one of the types described in the previous item;
</p></li>

<li><p>
<tt>f(t1, t2, ..., tN)</tt> in all other cases.
</p></li>
</ul>

</blockquote>

</li>
</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2220"></a>2220. Under-specification of <tt>operator==</tt> for <tt>regex_token_iterator</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 28.12.2.2 [re.tokiter.comp] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Pete Becker <b>Opened:</b> 2012-11-21 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-12-25</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#re.tokiter.comp">active issues</a> in [re.tokiter.comp].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#re.tokiter.comp">issues</a> in [re.tokiter.comp].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
Consider the following example:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
std::string str0("x");
std::regex rg0("a");
std::regex_token_iterator it0(str0.begin(), str0.end(), rg0, -1); // points at "x" in str0
std::string str1("x");
std::regex rg1("b");
std::regex_token_iterator it1(str1.begin(), str1.end(), rg1, -1); // points at "x" in str1
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
28.12.2.2 [re.tokiter.comp] p1 says that <tt>it0.operator==(it1)</tt> returns true "if 
<tt>*this</tt> and <tt>right</tt> are both suffix iterators and <tt>suffix == right.suffix</tt>"; both 
conditions are satisfied in this example. It does not say that they must both be iterators 
into the same sequence, nor does it say (as general iterator requirements do) that they must 
both be in the domain of <tt>==</tt> in order for the comparison to be meaningful. It's a 
simple statement: they're equal if the strings they point at compare equal. Given this being
a valid comparison, the obtained result of "true" looks odd.
<p/>
The problem is that for iterator values prior to the suffix iterator, equality means the same 
regular expression and the same matched sequence (both uses of "same" refer to identity, not equality); 
for the suffix iterator, equality means that the matched sequences compare equal.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2221"></a>2221. No formatted output operator for <tt>nullptr</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 28.12.2.2 [re.tokiter.comp] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Matt Austern <b>Opened:</b> 2012-12-07 <b>Last modified:</b> 2012-12-25</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#re.tokiter.comp">active issues</a> in [re.tokiter.comp].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#re.tokiter.comp">issues</a> in [re.tokiter.comp].</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 I write 
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
std::cout &lt;&lt; nullptr &lt;&lt; std::endl;
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
I get a compilation error, "ambiguous overload for '<tt>operator&lt;&lt;</tt>' in '<tt>std::cout &lt;&lt; nullptr</tt>'". 
As far as I can tell, the compiler is right to issue that error. There are inserters for <tt>const void*</tt>, 
<tt>const char*</tt>, <tt>const signed char*</tt>, and <tt>const unsigned char*</tt>, and none for 
<tt>nullptr_t</tt>, so the expression really is ambiguous.
<p/>
Proposed resolution:
<p/>
The obvious library solution is to add a <tt>nullptr_t</tt> overload, which would be defined something like
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class C, class T&gt;
basic_ostream&lt;C, T&gt;&amp; operator&lt;&lt;(basic_ostream&lt;C, T&gt;&amp; os, nullptr_t) 
{ 
  return os &lt;&lt; (void*) nullptr; 
}
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
We might also consider addressing this at a core level: add a special-case language rule that addresses all 
cases where you write <tt>f(nullptr)</tt> and <tt>f</tt> is overloaded on multiple pointer types. (Perhaps 
a tiebreaker saying that <tt>void*</tt> is preferred in such cases.)
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2223"></a>2223. <tt>shrink_to_fit</tt> effect on iterator validity</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.3.6.3 [vector.capacity] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Juan Soulie <b>Opened:</b> 2012-12-17 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</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#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
After the additions by <a href="lwg-defects.html#2033">2033</a>, it appears clear that the intended effect includes a reallocation and 
thus the potential effect on iterators should be explicitly added to the text in order to not contradict 
23.2.1 [container.requirements.general]/11, or at the very least, explicitly state that a reallocation may 
happen.
<p/>
Taking consistency with "reserve" into consideration, I propose:
</p>
<ul>
<li><p>
that the current "Remarks" are made its "Effect" instead, inserting "Reallocation happens at this point if and only 
if the function effectively reduces the capacity." after the note on non-bindingness.
</p>
</li>
<li><p>
adding a "Remarks" paragraph, similar to that of reserve: "Reallocation invalidates all the references, pointers, 
and iterators referring to the elements in the sequence."
</p></li>
</ul>
<p>
BTW, while we are at it, I believe the effect on iterators should also be explicitly stated in the other instance 
a reallocation may happen: 23.3.6.5 [vector.modifiers]/1 &mdash; even if obvious, it only contradicts 
23.2.1 [container.requirements.general]/11 implicitly. 
<p/>
I propose to also insert "Reallocation invalidates all the references, pointers, and iterators referring to the 
elements in the sequence." at the appropriate location in its "Remarks".
</p>

<p><i>[2012-12-19: Jonathan Wakely comments]</i></p>


<p>
The described problem also affects <tt>std::basic_string</tt> and <tt>std::deque</tt>.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Review.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-04-18, Bristol]</i></p>
 

<p>Daniel extends the P/R.</p>

<p>Rationale:</p>

<p>The wording in 21.4.4 [string.capacity] combined with 21.4.1 [string.require]
seems to say the necessary things. We cannot impose all requirements as we do for <tt>vector</tt>, because
we want to allow the short-string-optimization.</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3485.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Keep 21.4.4 [string.capacity] around p14 <em>unchanged</em>, because we don't speak about
reallocations and we give the strong exception guarantee in 21.4.1 [string.require] (Invalidation
specification also at that place):</p>
<blockquote><pre>
void shrink_to_fit();
</pre>
<p>
-14- <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> ].
</p>
</blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Edit 23.3.3.3 [deque.capacity] around p7 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
void shrink_to_fit();
</pre>
<p>
-5- <i>Requires</i>: <tt>T</tt> shall be <tt>MoveInsertable</tt> into <tt>*this</tt>.
<p/>
<ins>-?- <i>Effects</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> ] Reallocation happens at this point if and only 
if the function effectively reduces the capacity. 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/>
-6- <i>Complexity</i>: Linear in the size of the sequence.
<p/>
-7- <i>Remarks</i>: <del><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> ] If an exception is thrown other than by the move constructor 
of a non-<tt>CopyInsertable</tt> <tt>T</tt> there are no effects.</del><ins>Reallocation invalidates all 
the references, pointers, and iterators referring to the elements in the sequence.</ins>
</p>
</blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Edit 23.3.6.3 [vector.capacity] around p7 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
void shrink_to_fit();
</pre>
<p>
-7- <i>Requires</i>: <tt>T</tt> shall be <tt>MoveInsertable</tt> into <tt>*this</tt>.
<p/>
<ins>-?- <i>Effects</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> ] Reallocation happens at this point if and only 
if the function effectively reduces the capacity. 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/>
-8- <i>Complexity</i>: Linear in the size of the sequence.
<p/>
-9- <i>Remarks</i>: <del><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> ] If an exception is thrown other than by the move constructor 
of a non-<tt>CopyInsertable</tt> <tt>T</tt> there are no effects.</del><ins>Reallocation invalidates all 
the references, pointers, and iterators referring to the elements in the sequence.</ins>
</p>
</blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Edit 23.3.6.5 [vector.modifiers] p1 as indicated:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
iterator insert(const_iterator position, const T&amp; x);
iterator insert(const_iterator position, T&amp;&amp; x);
iterator insert(const_iterator position, size_type n, const T&amp; x);
template &lt;class InputIterator&gt;
iterator insert(const_iterator position, InputIterator first, InputIterator last);
iterator insert(const_iterator position, initializer_list&lt;T&gt;);
template &lt;class... Args&gt; void emplace_back(Args&amp;&amp;... args);
template &lt;class... Args&gt; iterator emplace(const_iterator position, Args&amp;&amp;... args);
void push_back(const T&amp; x);
void push_back(T&amp;&amp; x);
</pre>
<p>
-1- <i>Remarks</i>: Causes reallocation if the new size is greater than the old capacity. <ins>Reallocation 
invalidates all the references, pointers, and iterators referring to the elements in the sequence.</ins> If 
no reallocation happens, all the iterators and references before the insertion point remain valid. If an 
exception is thrown other than by the copy constructor, move constructor, assignment operator, or move 
assignment operator of <tt>T</tt> or by any <tt>InputIterator</tt> operation there are no effects. If an 
exception is thrown by the move constructor of a non-<tt>CopyInsertable</tt> <tt>T</tt>, the effects are unspecified.
</p>
</blockquote>
</li>
</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2224"></a>2224. Ambiguous status of access to non-live objects</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 17.6.4.10 [res.on.objects] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Geoffrey Romer <b>Opened:</b> 2012-12-17 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#res.on.objects">issues</a> in [res.on.objects].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
The standard currently does not discuss when library objects may be accessed, except in a non-normative 
note pertaining to synchronization in [res.on.objects], leaving it ambiguous whether single-threaded 
code can access a library object during its construction or destruction. For example, there is a 
reasonable question as to what happens if the deleter supplied to a <tt>unique_ptr</tt> transitively 
accesses the <tt>unique_ptr</tt> itself during <tt>unique_ptr</tt>'s destruction; a straightforward 
reading suggests that this is permitted, and that the deleter will see the <tt>unique_ptr</tt> still 
holding the originally stored pointer, but consensus on the LWG reflector indicates this was not the 
intent (see discussion beginning with 
<a href="http://accu.org/cgi-bin/wg21/message?wg=lib&amp;msg=33362">c++std-lib-33362</a>).
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Open.
</p>
<p>
Geoffrey will provide an example that clearly highlights the issue.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-19 Geoffrey provides revised resolution and an example]</i></p>


<p>
I contend that the most straightforward reading of the current standard requires the following example code to print 
"good" (because <tt>~unique_ptr</tt> is not specified to modify the state of the internal pointer), but the consensus 
on the reflector was that its behavior should be undefined.
<p/>
This example also shows that, contrary to a comment in the telecon, the PR is not tautological. 12.7 [class.cdtor]/p4 
explicitly permits member function calls during destruction, so the behavior of this code is well-defined as far as 
the core language is concerned, despite the fact that it accesses a library object after the end of the object's 
lifetime. If we want this code to have undefined behavior, we need to specify that at the library level.
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
#include &lt;memory&gt;
#include &lt;iostream&gt;

class A;

struct B {
 std::unique_ptr&lt;A&gt; a;
};

struct A {
 B* b;
 ~A() {
   if (b-&gt;a.get() == this) {
     std::cout &lt;&lt; "good" &lt;&lt; std::endl;
   }
 }
};

int main() {
 B b;
 b.a.reset(new A);
 b.a-&gt;b = &b;
}
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
Previous resolution:
</p>
<blockquote class="note">
<ol>
<li><p>Change the title of sub-clause 17.6.4.10 [res.on.objects] as indicated:</p>
<p><del>Shared objects and the library</del><ins>Library object access</ins> [res.on.objects]</p>
</li>

<li><p>Edit 17.6.4.10 [res.on.objects] p2 as indicated:</p>
<p>-2- <del>[<i>Note</i>: In particular, the program is required to ensure that completion of the constructor 
of any object of a class type defined in the standard library happens before any other member function 
invocation on that object and, unless otherwise specified, to ensure that completion of any member function 
invocation other than destruction on such an object happens before destruction of that object. This applies 
even to objects such as mutexes intended for thread synchronization. &mdash; <i>end note</i>]</del>
<ins>If an object of a standard library type is accessed outside of the object's lifetime (3.8 [basic.life]), 
the behavior is undefined unless otherwise specified.</ins></p>
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3485.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change the title of sub-clause 17.6.4.10 [res.on.objects] as indicated:</p>
<p><del>Shared objects and the library</del><ins>Library object access</ins> [res.on.objects]</p>
</li>

<li><p>Edit 17.6.4.10 [res.on.objects] p2 as indicated: <em>[<i>Editorial remark:</i> The motivation, is to 
be more precise about the meaning of "outside the object's lifetime" in the presence of threads &mdash; <i>end editorial 
remark</i>]</em></p>
<p>-2- <del>[<i>Note</i>: In particular, the program is required to ensure that completion of the constructor 
of any object of a class type defined in the standard library happens before any other member function 
invocation on that object and, unless otherwise specified, to ensure that completion of any member function 
invocation other than destruction on such an object happens before destruction of that object. This applies 
even to objects such as mutexes intended for thread synchronization. &mdash; <i>end note</i>]</del>
<ins>If an object of a standard library type is accessed, and the beginning of the object's lifetime 
(3.8 [basic.life]) does not happen before the access, or the access does not happen before the end 
of the object's lifetime, the behavior is undefined unless otherwise specified.</ins></p>
</li>
</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2227"></a>2227. Stateful comparison objects in 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> Juan Soulie <b>Opened:</b> 2012-12-19 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</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>
Table 102 in 23.2.4 [associative.reqmts]/8 states on expression <tt>a.key_comp()</tt> that it 
"returns the comparison object out of which a was constructed". At the same time, 
23.2.1 [container.requirements.general]/8 states (starting in the third line) that 
"...Any <tt>Compare</tt>, <tt>Pred</tt>, or <tt>Hash</tt> objects belonging to <tt>a</tt> and <tt>b</tt> 
shall be swappable and <em>shall be exchanged</em> by unqualified calls to non-member swap...". This is 
problematic for any compliant implementation, since once swapped the container cannot return the comparison 
object out of which it was constructed unless incurring in storing an otherwise needless object.
<p/>
The simple solution is to correct that statement in Table 102, but I believe this is part of a larger problem 
of underspecified behavior: The new standard has made an effort in regards to allocators and now fully 
specifies what happens to stateful allocator objects. It has even specified what happens to stateful <tt>hasher</tt> 
and <tt>key_equal</tt> members of unordered containers (they propagate), but it says nothing about stateful 
comparison objects of (ordered) associative containers, except for the statement in 
23.2.1 [container.requirements.general]/8 referred above and only related to <tt>swap</tt>.
<p/>
For example, it is unclear to me what is specified to happen on an assignment: should the comparison object 
be copied/moved along with the elements, or should the left-hand side object keep its own?
Maybe this has been intentionally left unspecified with the purpose of compatibility with C++98, which I 
understand it specified that comparison objects were kept for the entire life of the container (like allocators) 
&mdash; an unfortunate choice. But anyway, the segment of 23.2.1 [container.requirements.general] quoted 
above seems to break any possible backwards compatibility with C++98 in this regard.
<p/>
Therefore, taking into consideration consistency with how this is dealed with for unordered associative 
containers, I propose that Table 102 is modified as follows:
</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>
The row for expression <tt>a.key_comp()</tt> is changed so that its "assertion/note pre-/post-condition" reads 
"Returns <tt>a</tt>'s comparison object."
</p>
</li>

<li>
<p>
A new row is added at the appropriate location (which I believe would be after "X(il)" row), with:
</p>

<blockquote>
<table border="1">
<caption>Table 102 &mdash; 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>
<tt>X(b)<br/>
X a(b)</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>X</tt>
</td>
<td>
Copy constructor. In addition to<br/>
the requirements of Table 96, copies<br/>
the comparison object.
</td>
<td>
Linear in <tt>b.size()</tt>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>a = b</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>X&amp;</tt>
</td>
<td>
Copy assignment operator. In addition to<br/>
the requirements of Table 96, copies the<br/>
comparison object.
</td>
<td>
Linear in <tt>a.size()</tt> and <tt>b.size()</tt>
</td>
</tr>

</table>
</blockquote>

</li>
</ul>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Review.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-04-18, Bristol]</i></p>
 



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3485.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change Table 102 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote>
<table border="1">
<caption>Table 102 &mdash; 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" align="center">
<tt>&hellip;</tt>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<tt>X(il)</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt></tt>
</td>
<td>
Same as <tt>X(il.begin(), il.end())</tt>.
</td>
<td>
same as <tt>X(il.begin(), il.end())</tt>.
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<ins><tt>X(b)<br/>
X a(b)</tt></ins>
</td>
<td>
<tt></tt>
</td>
<td>
<ins>Copy constructor. In addition to<br/>
the requirements of Table 96, copies<br/>
the comparison object.</ins>
</td>
<td>
<ins>Linear in <tt>b.size()</tt></ins>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<ins><tt>a = b</tt></ins>
</td>
<td>
<ins><tt>X&amp;</tt></ins>
</td>
<td>
<ins>Copy assignment operator. In addition to<br/>
the requirements of Table 96, copies the<br/>
comparison object.</ins>
</td>
<td>
<ins>Linear in <tt>a.size()</tt> and <tt>b.size()</tt></ins>
</td>
</tr>

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

<tr>
<td>
<tt>a.key_comp()</tt>
</td>
<td>
<tt>X::key_compare</tt>
</td>
<td>
<del>r</del><ins>R</ins>eturns <del>the</del><ins><tt>a</tt>'s</ins> comparison object<br/>
<del>out of which a was constructed.</del>
</td>
<td>
constant
</td>
</tr>


</table>
</blockquote>

</li>

</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2228"></a>2228. Missing <em>SFINAE</em> rule in <tt>unique_ptr</tt> templated assignment</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.7.1.2.3 [unique.ptr.single.asgn] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Review">Review</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Geoffrey Romer <b>Opened:</b> 2012-12-20 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#unique.ptr.single.asgn">active issues</a> in [unique.ptr.single.asgn].</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#Review">Review</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>

<p>
20.7.1.2.3 [unique.ptr.single.asgn]/5 permits <tt>unique_ptr</tt>'s templated assignment operator to participate 
in overload resolution even when incompatibilities between <tt>D</tt> and <tt>E</tt> will render the result ill-formed, 
but the corresponding templated copy constructor is removed from the overload set in those situations (see the third 
bullet point of 20.7.1.2.1 [unique.ptr.single.ctor]/19). This asymmetry is confusing, and presumably unintended; 
it may lead to situations where constructing one <tt>unique_ptr</tt> from another is well-formed, but assigning from 
the same <tt>unique_ptr</tt> would be ill-formed.
<p/>
There is a slight coupling between this and LWG <a href="lwg-active.html#2118">2118</a>, in that my PR for LWG <a href="lwg-active.html#2118">2118</a> incorporates 
equivalent wording in the specification of the templated assignment operator for the array specialization; the two PRs 
are logically independent, but if my PR for <a href="lwg-active.html#2118">2118</a> is accepted but the above PR is not, the discrepancy 
between the base template and the specialization could be confusing.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Review.
</p>
<p>
The wording looks good, but we want a little more time than the telecon permits to be truly comfortable.
We expect this issue to resolve fairly easily in Bristol.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3485.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Revise 20.7.1.2.3 [unique.ptr.single.asgn] p5 as follows:</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><p><tt>unique_ptr&lt;U, E&gt;::pointer</tt> is implicitly convertible to <tt>pointer</tt> and</p></li>
<li><p><tt>U</tt> is not an array type<del>.</del><ins>, and</ins></p></li>
<li><p><ins>either <tt>D</tt> is a reference type and <tt>E</tt> is the same type as <tt>D</tt>, or <tt>D</tt> is 
not a reference type and <tt>E</tt> is implicitly convertible to <tt>D</tt>.</ins></p></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;E&gt;(u.get_deleter())</tt>.
<p/>
-7- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>*this</tt>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>

</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2230"></a>2230. &quot;<em>see below</em>&quot; for initializer-list constructors of unordered containers</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 23.5 [unord] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2013-01-06 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-01-15</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#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
The <tt>unordered_map</tt> class definition in 23.5.4.1 [unord.map.overview] declares an
initializer-list constructor that says "see below":
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
unordered_map(initializer_list&lt;value_type&gt;,
    size_type = <em>see below</em>,
    const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
    const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
    const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
But that constructor isn't defined below. The same problem exists for the other unordered associative containers.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3485.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Edit 23.5.4.2 [unord.map.cnstr] as follows:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class InputIterator&gt;
unordered_map(InputIterator f, InputIterator l,
  size_type n = <em>see below</em>,
  const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
  const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
  const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());
<ins>unordered_map(initializer_list&lt;value_type&gt; il,
  size_type = <em>see below</em>,
  const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
  const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
  const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());</ins>
</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
implementation-defined. Then inserts elements from the range <tt>[f, l)</tt> <ins>for the first form, or from the range 
<tt>[il.begin(), il.end())</tt> for the second form</ins>. <tt>max_load_factor()</tt> returns <tt>1.0</tt>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Edit 23.5.5.2 [unord.multimap.cnstr] as follows:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class InputIterator&gt;
unordered_multimap(InputIterator f, InputIterator l,
  size_type n = <em>see below</em>,
  const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
  const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
  const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());
<ins>unordered_multimap(initializer_list&lt;value_type&gt; il,
  size_type = <em>see below</em>,
  const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
  const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
  const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());</ins>
</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
implementation-defined. Then inserts elements from the range <tt>[f, l)</tt> <ins>for the first form, or from the range 
<tt>[il.begin(), il.end())</tt> for the second form</ins>. <tt>max_load_factor()</tt> returns <tt>1.0</tt>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Edit 23.5.6.2 [unord.set.cnstr] as follows:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class InputIterator&gt;
unordered_set(InputIterator f, InputIterator l,
  size_type n = <em>see below</em>,
  const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
  const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
  const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());
<ins>unordered_set(initializer_list&lt;value_type&gt; il,
  size_type = <em>see below</em>,
  const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
  const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
  const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());</ins>
</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
implementation-defined. Then inserts elements from the range <tt>[f, l)</tt> <ins>for the first form, or from the range 
<tt>[il.begin(), il.end())</tt> for the second form</ins>. <tt>max_load_factor()</tt> returns <tt>1.0</tt>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>Edit 23.5.7.2 [unord.multiset.cnstr] as follows:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class InputIterator&gt;
unordered_multiset(InputIterator f, InputIterator l,
  size_type n = <em>see below</em>,
  const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
  const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
  const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());
<ins>unordered_multiset(initializer_list&lt;value_type&gt; il,
  size_type = <em>see below</em>,
  const hasher&amp; hf = hasher(),
  const key_equal&amp; eql = key_equal(),
  const allocator_type&amp; a = allocator_type());</ins>
</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
implementation-defined. Then inserts elements from the range <tt>[f, l)</tt> <ins>for the first form, or from the range 
<tt>[il.begin(), il.end())</tt> for the second form</ins>. <tt>max_load_factor()</tt> returns <tt>1.0</tt>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2232"></a>2232. The <tt>char_traits</tt> specializations should declare their <tt>length()</tt>, <tt>compare()</tt>, and 
<tt>find()</tt> members constexpr</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 21.2.3 [char.traits.specializations] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jeffrey Yasskin <b>Opened:</b> 2012-12-24 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#char.traits.specializations">issues</a> in [char.traits.specializations].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
These functions have easy recursive constexpr implementations that, unfortunately, aren't efficient at runtime. 
EWG is still figuring out how to solve this problem in general (e.g., 
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3444.html">N3444</a> isn't sufficient to avoid 
stack overflows in debug builds or to get the optimal assembly-based implementations at runtime), so users can't 
portably solve this problem for themselves, but implementations can use compiler-specific techniques to choose 
the right implementation inside their standard libraries.
</p>

<p>
The LWG is still undecided about whether individual implementations can add constexpr to these functions, so we 
need to add <tt>constexpr</tt> to the standard here for implementations to be able to improve this.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Open.
</p>
<p>
There are a number of people who have a strong interest in this issue not available for the telecon.
</p>
<p>
It also plays at the heart of a discussion about library freedoms for <tt>constexpr</tt> and specifying
a library that may depend on unspecified compiler intrinsics to be implementable.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3485.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>In 21.2.3.1 [char.traits.specializations.char], 21.2.3.2 [char.traits.specializations.char16_t], 
21.2.3.3 [char.traits.specializations.char32_t], and 21.2.3.4 [char.traits.specializations.wchar.t]:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
static <ins>constexpr</ins> int compare(const char_type* s1, const char_type* s2, size_t n);
static <ins>constexpr</ins> size_t length(const char_type* s);
static <ins>constexpr</ins> const char_type* find(const char_type* s, size_t n, const char_type&amp; a);
</pre></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2233"></a>2233. <tt>bad_function_call::what()</tt> unhelpful</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.8.11.1 [func.wrap.badcall] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2013-01-05 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#Open">Open</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
A strict reading of the standard implies <tt>std::bad_function_call{}.what()</tt> returns the same string as
<tt>std::exception{}.what()</tt> which doesn't help to know what happened if you catch an exception by reference 
to <tt>std::exception</tt>.
</p>

<p>
For consistency with <tt>bad_weak_ptr::what()</tt> it should return <tt>"bad_function_call"</tt>.
</p>

<p>
See <a href="http://accu.org/cgi-bin/wg21/message?wg=lib&amp;msg=33515">c++std-lib-33515</a> for other details.
</p>

<p>
There was a considerable support on the reflector to instead change the specification of both <tt>bad_weak_ptr::what()</tt> 
and <tt>bad_function_call::what()</tt> to return an implementation-defined string instead.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Open.
</p>
<p>
Consensus that we want consistency in how this is treated.  Less consensus on what the common
direction should be.
</p>
<p>
Alisdair to provide wording proposing that all string literals held by standard exception objects are
either unspecified, or implmentation defined.
</p>



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3485.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Edit 20.8.11.1.1 [func.wrap.badcall.const]:</p>
<blockquote><pre>
bad_function_call() noexcept;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-1- <i>Effects</i>: constructs a <tt>bad_function_call object</tt>.
<p/>
<ins>-?- <i>Postconditions</i>: <tt>what()</tt> returns <tt>"bad_function_call"</tt>.</ins>
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>
</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2234"></a>2234. <tt>assert()</tt> should allow usage in constant expressions</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 19.3 [assertions] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Open">Open</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2013-01-12 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</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 is unclear from the current specification whether <tt>assert()</tt> expressions can be used in 
(potential) constant expressions. As an example consider the implementation of a <tt>constexpr</tt>
function:
</p>

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

template&lt;class T, unsigned N&gt;
struct array {
  T data[N];
  constexpr const T&amp; operator[](unsigned i) const {
    return assert(i &lt; N), data[i];
  }
};

int main() {
  constexpr array&lt;int, 3&gt; ai = {1, 2, 3};
  constexpr int i = ai[0];
  int j = ai[0];
  // constexpr int k = ai[5];
}
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
The first question is whether this program is guaranteed well-formed? A second question is whether is would guaranteed to be
ill-formed, if we uncomment the last code line in <tt>main()</tt>?
</p>

<p>
The wording in 19.3 [assertions] doesn't add anything significant to the C99 wording. From the C99 specification 
(7.2 p1 and 7.2.1.1 p2) we get already some valuable guarantees:
</p>

<ul>
<li><p>
The expression <tt>assert(e)</tt> is a <tt>void</tt> expression for all expressions <tt>e</tt> independent of 
the definition of <tt>NDEBUG</tt>.
</p></li>
<li><p>
If <tt>NDEBUG</tt> is defined, <tt>assert(e)</tt> is equivalent to the expression <tt>void()</tt>
(or anything that cannot be distinguished from that).
</p></li>
</ul>

<p>
The current wording does not yet <em>guarantee</em> that <tt>assert</tt> expressions can be used in constant expressions,
but all tested implementations (gcc, MSVC) would already support this use-case. It seems to me that this should be possible
without giving <tt>assert</tt> a special meaning for the core language.
<p/>
As a related comment it should be added, that there is a core language 
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3444.html">proposal</a> 
that intents to relax some current constraints for <tt>constexpr</tt> functions and <tt>literal</tt> types. The most 
interessting one (making <tt>void</tt> a literal types and allowing for expression-statements) would simplify the motivating 
example implementation of <tt>operator[]</tt> to:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
constexpr const T&amp; operator[](unsigned i) const {
  assert(i &lt; N);
  return data[i];
};
</pre></blockquote>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Open.
</p>
<p>
We are still gaining experience with <tt>constexpr</tt> as a language feature, and there may
be work in Evolution that would help address some of these concerns.  Defer discussion until
we have a group familiar with any evolutionary direction.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2235"></a>2235. Undefined behavior without proper requirements on <tt>basic_string</tt> constructors</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 21.4.2 [string.cons] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Juan Soulie <b>Opened:</b> 2013-01-17 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#string.cons">issues</a> in [string.cons].</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 21.4.2 [string.cons], I believe tighter requirements should be imposed on <tt>basic_string</tt>'s constructors 
taking an <tt>s</tt> argument (or, a behavior should be provided for the undefined cases).
These requirements are properly stated in the other members functions taking <tt>s</tt> arguments (<tt>append</tt>, 
<tt>assign</tt>, <tt>insert</tt>,...).
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
basic_string(const charT* s, size_type n, const Allocator&amp; a = Allocator());
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
Relative to N3485, 21.4.2 [string.cons]/6 says "Requires: <tt>s</tt> shall not be a null pointer and <tt>n &lt; npos</tt>", 
where it should say: "Requires: <tt>s</tt> points to an array of at least <tt>n</tt> elements of <tt>charT</tt>"
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
basic_string(const charT* s, const Allocator&amp; a = Allocator());
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
21.4.2 [string.cons]/8 says "Requires: <tt>s</tt> shall not be a null pointer.", where it should say:
"Requires: <tt>s</tt> points to an array of at least <tt>traits::length(s) + 1</tt> elements of <tt>charT</tt>"
</p>

<p>Daniel:</p>
<p>
I think that 17.6.4.9 [res.on.arguments] p1 b2 basically requires this already, but the wording is indeed worth 
improving it.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-03-15 Issues Teleconference]</i></p>

<p>
Moved to Review.
</p>
<p>
The resolution could be worded more cleanly, and there is some concern about redundancy between
<i>Requirements</i> and <i>Effects</i> clauses.  Consensus that we do want to say something like
this for the <i>Requirements</i> though.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-04-18, Bristol]</i></p>
 



<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3485.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Change 21.4.2 [string.cons]/6 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
basic_string(const charT* s, size_type n, const Allocator&amp; a = Allocator());
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-6- <i>Requires</i>: <tt>s</tt> <del>shall not be a null pointer and <tt>n &lt; npos</tt></del><ins>points to an array 
of at least <tt>n</tt> elements of <tt>charT</tt></ins>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>

</li>

<li><p>Change 21.4.2 [string.cons]/8 as indicated:</p>

<blockquote><pre>
basic_string(const charT* s, const Allocator&amp; a = Allocator());
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-8- <i>Requires</i>: <tt>s</tt> <del>shall not be a null pointer</del><ins>points to an array 
of at least <tt>traits::length(s) + 1</tt> elements of <tt>charT</tt></ins>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>

</li>
</ol>





<hr>
<h3><a name="2236"></a>2236. <tt>kill_dependency</tt> unconditionally noexcept</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 29.2 [atomics.syn], 29.3 [atomics.order] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Daniel Kr&uuml;gler <b>Opened:</b> 2013-01-19 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#atomics.syn">issues</a> in [atomics.syn].</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 "magic" <tt>kill_dependency</tt> function is a function without any constraints on the template parameter <tt>T</tt> 
and is specified as
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class T&gt;
T kill_dependency(T y) noexcept;
</pre><blockquote>
<p>
-14- <i>Effects</i>: The argument does not carry a dependency to the return value (1.10).
<p/>
-15- <i>Returns</i>: <tt>y</tt>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>

<p>
I wonder whether the unconditional noexcept is really intended here:
Assume we have some type <tt>U</tt> that has a potentially throwing move
constructor (or it has a potentially throwing copy constructor and no
move constructor), for any "normal" function template with the same
signature and the same effects (modulo the dependency magic) this
would mean that it cannot safely be declared noexcept because of the
return statement being part of the complete function call affected by
noexcept (The by-value function argument is irrelevant in this
context). In other words it seems that a function call such as
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
struct S {
  ...
  S(const S&amp; r) { if(<em>some condition</em>) throw Something(); }
  ...
};

int main() {
  S s1 = ...;
  S s2 = std::kill_dependency(s1);
}
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
would be required to call <tt>std::terminate</tt> if the copy constructor of <tt>S</tt> throws during the return 
of <tt>std::kill_dependency</tt>.
<p/>
To require copy elision for this already magic function would look like a low-hanging fruit to solve this problem, 
but this case is not covered by current copy elision rules see 12.8 p31 b1:
<p/>
"&mdash; in a return statement in a function with a class return type, when the expression is the name of a non-volatile 
automatic object (other than a function or catch-clause parameter) with the same <em>cv</em>-unqualified type as the 
function return type, the copy/move operation can be omitted by constructing the automatic object directly into the
function's return value".
<p/>
Some options come into my mind:
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>
Make the exception-specification a constrained one in regard via <tt>std::is_nothrow_move_constructible</tt>:
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class T&gt;
T kill_dependency(T y) noexcept(<em>see below</em>);
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
This is similar to the approach taken for function templates such as std::swap.
</p>
</li>

<li><p>
Use perfect forwarding (This needs further wording to correct the effects):
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class T&gt;
T&amp;&amp; kill_dependency(T&amp;&amp; y) noexcept;
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li><p>
Impose constraints on the template arguments in regard to throwing exceptions while copying/moving.
</p></li>

<li><p>
Keep the state as it is but possibly add a note about a call of <tt>std::terminate</tt> in above scenario.
</p></li>
</ol>

<p>
A second problem is that the current wording is not clear whether it is well-defined to call the function with
types that are reference types, such as in the following example:
</p>

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

int main()
{
  int a = 12;
  int&amp; b = std::kill_dependency&lt;int&amp;&gt;(a);
}
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
It is unclear what kind of dependency is killed here. This is presumably a core language problem, but could
affect the possible resolutions of the problem.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2237"></a>2237. <tt>&lt;cuchar&gt;</tt> macros</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 21.7 [c.strings] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jason Merrill <b>Opened:</b> 2013-01-29 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#c.strings">active issues</a> in [c.strings].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#c.strings">issues</a> in [c.strings].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
Apparently C1X changes <tt>__STDC_UTF_16__</tt> and <tt>__STDC_UTF_32__</tt> from macros
defined in <tt>uchar.h</tt> (and reflected in C++ by Table 79) to be predefined by the compiler. 
Do we want to do the same?
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2238"></a>2238. Problematic iterator-pair constructor of containers</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 21.7 [c.strings] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Johannes Schaub <b>Opened:</b> 2013-02-02 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#c.strings">active issues</a> in [c.strings].</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#c.strings">issues</a> in [c.strings].</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 non-explicit nature of the iterator-pair constructor of containers, such a
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class InputIterator&gt;
vector(InputIterator first, InputIterator last, const Allocator&amp; = Allocator());
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
can be selected in unexpected situations, leading to a hard runtime error, as demonstrated by the following example:
</p>

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

void f(std::vector&lt;char&gt; v){ /* ... */}

int main() {
  f({"A", "B"});
}
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
The actually intended initializer-list constructor isn't feasible here, so the best match is the constructor template
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template &lt;class InputIterator&gt;
vector(InputIterator first, InputIterator last, const Allocator&amp; = Allocator());
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
This compiles, but will result in code running amok. The potential trap (that cannot be easily detected by the
library implementation) could be reduced by making this constructor explicit. It would still have the effect to 
be selected here, but the code would be ill-formed, so the programmer gets a clear meassage here.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2239"></a>2239. <tt>min/max/minmax</tt> requirements</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 25.4.7 [alg.min.max] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Juan Soulie <b>Opened:</b> 2013-01-26 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#alg.min.max">issues</a> in [alg.min.max].</p>
<p><b>View all issues with</b> <a href="lwg-status.html#New">New</a> status.</p>
<p><b>Discussion:</b></p>
<p>
25.4.7 [alg.min.max] requires type <tt>T</tt> in <tt>min</tt>, <tt>max</tt>, and <tt>minmax</tt> to be 
<tt>LessThanComparable</tt>, but I don't believe this should be required for the versions that take a <tt>Compare</tt> 
argument.
<p/>
Paragraphs 1 to 4 of 25.4 [alg.sorting] should apply anyway, although I'm not sure about <tt>Compare</tt> 
being required to induce a strict weak ordering here.
<p/>
Further, <tt>min</tt> and <tt>max</tt> also lack formal complexity guarantees.
</p>


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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2240"></a>2240. Probable misuse of term "function scope" in [thread.condition]</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 30.5.1 [thread.condition.condvar], 30.5.2 [thread.condition.condvarany] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> FrankHB1989 <b>Opened:</b> 2013-02-03 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#thread.condition.condvar">active issues</a> in [thread.condition.condvar].</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>
All usages of "function scope" in 30.5.1 [thread.condition.condvar] and 30.5.2 [thread.condition.condvarany], 
such as 30.5.1 [thread.condition.condvar] p10 b4:
</p>

<blockquote><p>
If the function exits via an exception, lock.lock() shall be called prior to exiting the <strong>function scope</strong>.
</p></blockquote>

<p>
seem to be inappropriate compared to the actual core language definition of 3.3.5 [basic.funscope]:
</p>

<blockquote><p>
Labels (6.1) have function scope and may be used anywhere in the function in which they are declared. <strong>Only
labels have function scope</strong>.
</p></blockquote>

<p>
Probably the intended meaning is "outermost block scope of the function".
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2241"></a>2241. <tt>&lt;cstdalign&gt;</tt> and <tt>#define</tt> of <tt>alignof</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 18.10 [support.runtime] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Richard Smith <b>Opened:</b> 2013-02-14 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#support.runtime">active issues</a> in [support.runtime].</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>
According to 18.10 [support.runtime] p2:
</p>

<blockquote><p>
The contents of these headers are the same as the Standard C library headers [..], <tt>&lt;stdalign.h&gt;</tt>, [..]
</p></blockquote>

<p>
Since our base C standard is C99, which doesn't have a <tt>&lt;stdalign.h&gt;</tt>, the reference to a non-existing 
C header is irritating (In this context <tt>&lt;stdalign.h&gt;</tt> doesn't refer to the deprecated C++ header
<tt>&lt;stdalign.h&gt;</tt> described in D.5 [depr.c.headers]).
<p/>
Furthermore, it would be also important that it doesn not define a macro named <tt>alignof</tt>, which C11 also defines 
in this header. 
<p/>
Currently we only have the following guarantee as part of 18.10 [support.runtime] p7:
</p>

<blockquote><p>
The header <tt>&lt;cstdalign&gt;</tt> and the header <tt>&lt;stdalign.h&gt;</tt> shall not define a macro named 
<tt>alignas</tt>.
</p></blockquote>

<p>
It is unclear what the better strategy is: Striking the reference to <tt>&lt;stdalign.h&gt;</tt> in
18.10 [support.runtime] p2 or upgrading to C11 as new base C standard.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2242"></a>2242. <tt>[uninitialized_]copy_n()</tt> defect</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 25.3.1 [alg.copy], 20.6.12.2 [uninitialized.copy] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Sean Parent <b>Opened:</b> 2013-02-14 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#alg.copy">issues</a> in [alg.copy].</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>copy_n()</tt> and <tt>uninitialized_copy_n()</tt> only return the output iterator, and not the input iterator. 
Likely the interface was simply copied from the original STL. Unfortunately the interface in the original STL contains a bug.
<p/>
<tt>copy_n()</tt> and <tt>uninitialized_copy_n()</tt> must return the resulting input iterator as well as the output 
iterator (I would suggest returning a pair). Without this, there is no way to continue reading from an actual input 
iterator &mdash; and if it is really a forward iterator, it will cost <tt>n</tt> increments to get back to where you were.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2243"></a>2243. <tt>istream::putback</tt> problem</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> Juan Soulie <b>Opened:</b> 2013-03-01 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#istream.unformatted">active issues</a> in [istream.unformatted].</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>
In 27.7.2.3 [istream.unformatted] / 34, when describing <tt>putback</tt>, it says that "<tt>rdbuf-&gt;sputbackc()</tt>" 
is called. The problem are not the obvious typos in the expression, but the fact that it may lead to different 
interpretations, since nowhere is specified what the required argument to <tt>sputbackc</tt> is.
<p/>
It can be guessed to be "<tt>rdbuf()-&gt;sputbackc(c)</tt>", but "<tt>rdbuf()-&gt;sputbackc(char_type())</tt>" or 
just anything would be as conforming (or non-confoming) as the first guess.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2244"></a>2244. Issue on <tt>basic_istream::seekg</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> Juan Soulie <b>Opened:</b> 2013-03-04 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#istream.unformatted">active issues</a> in [istream.unformatted].</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>
When issue <a href="lwg-defects.html#1445">1445</a> was resolved by adopting 
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3168.htm">N3168</a>, it exposed the need to 
modify both overloads of <tt>basic_istream::seekg</tt> (by inserting "the function clears eofbit," after "except that"), 
but the fix applied to the text apparently forgets the second overload at 27.7.2.3 [istream.unformatted] p43.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2245"></a>2245. <tt>packaged_task::reset()</tt> memory allocation</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> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2013-03-05 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#istream.unformatted">active issues</a> in [istream.unformatted].</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>
The effects of <tt>packaged_task::reset()</tt> result in memory allocation, but
don't allow a user to provide an allocator.
<p/>
<tt>packaged_task::reset()</tt> needs to be overloaded like so:
</p>

<blockquote><pre>
template&lt;class Alloc&gt;  
void reset(const Alloc&amp;);
</pre></blockquote>

<p>
Alternatively, the effects of <tt>reset()</tt> need to require the same allocator is used 
as at construction, which would require the constructor to store the allocator for later use.
<p/>
I like to remark that GCC at the moment uses the second option, i.e. the allocator passed to the constructor 
(if any) is used to create the new shared state, because this didn't require any change to the
interface.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2246"></a>2246. <tt>unique_ptr</tt> assignment effects w.r.t. deleter</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> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2013-03-13 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View other</b> <a href="lwg-index-open.html#unique.ptr.single.asgn">active issues</a> in [unique.ptr.single.asgn].</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 Effects clauses for <tt>unique_ptr</tt> assignment don't make sense, what
is the target of "an assignment from <tt>std::forward&lt;D&gt;(u.get_deleter())</tt>"?
<p/>
Obviously it's intended to be the deleter, but that isn't stated clearly.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-04-20, Bristol]</i></p>

<p>Move to Ready</p>


<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3485.</p>

<ol>
<li>
<p>
Edit 20.7.1.2.3 [unique.ptr.single.asgn] paragraph 2:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
unique_ptr&amp; operator=(unique_ptr&amp;&amp; u) noexcept;
</pre>
<blockquote><p>
[&hellip;]
<p/>
-2- <i>Effects</i>: Transfers ownership from <tt>u</tt> to <tt>*this</tt> as if by calling 
<tt>reset(u.release())</tt> followed by <del>an assignment from</del><tt><ins>get_deleter() = </ins>std::forward&lt;D&gt;(u.get_deleter())</tt>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

<li>
<p>
Edit 20.7.1.2.3 [unique.ptr.single.asgn] paragraph 6:
</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>
[&hellip;]
<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 <del>an assignment from</del><tt><ins>get_deleter() = </ins>std::forward&lt;E&gt;(u.get_deleter())</tt>.
</p>
</blockquote></blockquote>
</li>

</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2247"></a>2247. Type traits and <tt>std::nullptr_t</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.9.4.1 [meta.unary.cat] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#Ready">Ready</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Joe Gottman <b>Opened:</b> 2013-03-15 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</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 20.9.4.1 [meta.unary.cat], for every type <tt>T</tt>, exactly one of the primary type traits is true.  
So which is true for the type <tt>std::nullptr_t</tt>?  By 2.14.7 [lex.nullptr] <tt>std::nullptr_t</tt> is not a 
pointer type or a pointer-to-member type, so <tt>is_pointer</tt>, <tt>is_member_object_pointer</tt> and 
<tt>is_member_function_pointer</tt> can't be true for <tt>std::nullptr_t</tt>, and none of the other primary type traits 
seem to apply.
</p>

<p><i>[2013-04-20, Bristol]</i></p>

<p>Rename to <tt>is_null_pointer</tt>, move to Ready</p>

<p>Previous wording:</p>

<blockquote class="note">   
<p>This wording is relative to N3485.</p>

<ol>
<li>
<p>
Edit 20.9.2 [meta.type.synop], header <tt>&lt;type_traits&gt;</tt> synopsis:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  [&hellip;]
  // 20.9.4.1, primary type categories:
  template &lt;class T&gt; struct is_void;
  <ins>template &lt;class T&gt; struct is_nullptr;</ins>
  template &lt;class T&gt; struct is_integral;
  template &lt;class T&gt; struct is_floating_point;
  [&hellip;]
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li>
<p>
Edit Table 47 &mdash; "Primary type category predicates" as indicated:
</p>

<blockquote>
<table border="1">
<caption>Table 47 &mdash; Primary type category predicates</caption>
<tr>
<th>Template</th>
<th>Condition</th>
<th>Comments</th>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="3" align="center">
<tt>&hellip;</tt>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<ins><tt>template &lt;class T&gt;<br/>
struct is_nullptr;</tt></ins>
</td>
<td>
<ins><tt>T</tt> is <tt>std::nullptr_t</tt> ([basic.fundamental])</ins>
</td>
<td>
&nbsp;
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="3" align="center">
<tt>&hellip;</tt>
</td>
</tr>

</table>
</blockquote>

</li>

</ol>
</blockquote>


<p><b>Proposed resolution:</b></p>
<p>This wording is relative to N3485.</p>

<ol>
<li>
<p>
Edit 20.9.2 [meta.type.synop], header <tt>&lt;type_traits&gt;</tt> synopsis:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
namespace std {
  [&hellip;]
  // 20.9.4.1, primary type categories:
  template &lt;class T&gt; struct is_void;
  <ins>template &lt;class T&gt; struct is_null_pointer;</ins>
  template &lt;class T&gt; struct is_integral;
  template &lt;class T&gt; struct is_floating_point;
  [&hellip;]
}
</pre></blockquote>
</li>

<li>
<p>
Edit Table 47 &mdash; "Primary type category predicates" as indicated:
</p>

<blockquote>
<table border="1">
<caption>Table 47 &mdash; Primary type category predicates</caption>
<tr>
<th>Template</th>
<th>Condition</th>
<th>Comments</th>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="3" align="center">
<tt>&hellip;</tt>
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>
<ins><tt>template &lt;class T&gt;<br/>
struct is_null_pointer;</tt></ins>
</td>
<td>
<ins><tt>T</tt> is <tt>std::nullptr_t</tt> ([basic.fundamental])</ins>
</td>
<td>
&nbsp;
</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td colspan="3" align="center">
<tt>&hellip;</tt>
</td>
</tr>

</table>
</blockquote>

</li>

</ol>






<hr>
<h3><a name="2248"></a>2248. <tt>numeric_limits::is_iec559</tt> misnamed</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 18.3.2 [limits] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Pete Becker <b>Opened:</b> 2013-03-08 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#limits">issues</a> in [limits].</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 member should probably be named "is_ieee754". Or at least the standard should explain that IEC-559 no longer exists, 
and that it's been superseded by IEEE-754.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2249"></a>2249. Remove <tt>gets</tt> from <tt>&lt;cstdio&gt;</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 27.9.2 [c.files] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Jonathan Wakely <b>Opened:</b> 2013-04-17 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#c.files">issues</a> in [c.files].</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 27.9.2 [c.files] the current C++ standard claims that <tt>&lt;cstdio&gt;</tt> defines a
function called "gets" but it has no declaration or semantics, because it was removed from C11, 
having been deprecated since C99. We should remove it for C++14.
</p>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2250"></a>2250. Follow-up On Library Issue 2207</h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 20.5.1 [bitset.cons], 20.5.2 [bitset.members], 21.4.2 [string.cons], 21.4.6 [string.modifiers], 21.4.7 [string.ops] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Frank Birbacher <b>Opened:</b> 2013-04-18 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#bitset.cons">issues</a> in [bitset.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>
Similar to LWG <a href="lwg-defects.html#2207">2207</a> there are several other places where the Requires clause precludes the Throws condition. 
Searching for the <tt>out_of_range</tt> exception to be thrown, the following have been found (based on the working draft
N3485):
</p>

<ol>
<li><p>20.5.1 [bitset.cons] p3+4</p></li>
<li><p>20.5.2 [bitset.members] p13+14 (<tt>set</tt>)</p></li>
<li><p>20.5.2 [bitset.members] p19+20 (<tt>reset</tt>)</p></li>
<li><p>20.5.2 [bitset.members] p27+28 (<tt>flip</tt>)</p></li>
<li><p>20.5.2 [bitset.members] p41+42 (<tt>test</tt>)</p></li>
<li><p>21.4.2 [string.cons] p3+4</p></li>
<li><p>21.4.6.2 [string::append] p3+4</p></li>
<li><p>21.4.6.3 [string::assign] p4+5</p></li>
<li><p>21.4.6.4 [string::insert] p1+2, p5+6, p9+10 (partially)</p></li>
<li><p>21.4.6.5 [string::erase] p1+2</p></li>
<li><p>21.4.6.6 [string::replace] p1+2, p5+6, p9+10 (partially)</p></li>
<li><p>21.4.6.7 [string::copy] p1+2</p></li>
<li><p>21.4.7.8 [string::substr] p1+2</p></li>
</ol>



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





<hr>
<h3><a name="2251"></a>2251. C++ library should define <tt>ssize_t</tt></h3>
<p><b>Section:</b> 18.2 [support.types] <b>Status:</b> <a href="lwg-active.html#New">New</a>
 <b>Submitter:</b> Matt Austern <b>Opened:</b> 2013-04-19 <b>Last modified:</b> 2013-05-06</p>
<p><b>View all other</b> <a href="lwg-index.html#support.types">issues</a> in [support.types].</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 C++ standard library defines <tt>size_t</tt>, a typedef for an implementation defined unsigned integer type 
that can represent the sizes of objects. The POSIX standard augments this with <tt>ssize_t</tt>, a typedef for a 
signed integer type that corresponds to <tt>size_t</tt>.
<p/>
The <tt>ssize_t</tt> typedef is useful &mdash; useful enough that the C++ standard even refers to it. (In a 
non-normative footnote in 27.5.2 [stream.types].)  Also, lots of OS vendors add it to their headers anyway, 
even though it isn't part of the C or C++ standards, because those vendors are trying to define headers that 
conform to multiple standards at once. We should make users' and implementers' lives easier by adding 
<tt>ssize_t</tt> to 18.2 [support.types].
</p>



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





</body>
</html>
