This contains some minor and some slightly bigger changes. Most minor changes are fixes where you spoke of "the concept" (originally referring to a single concept) that I changed to referring to multiple concepts.
I have also added some more description on why I think forwarding-range is the central requirement for this concept, although I am unsure if maybe you and me actually were talking about different things. You don't want std::vector to model reconstructible-range, right? We are targeting O(1) reconstruction and we are expecting the reconstructed object to be independent of the original, right? Then we need forwarding-range IMHO!
I will add some more descriptions in between the lines.
Regarding the process: I don't know how these things go usually. Since this subsumes my paper, I would be fine with "retracting" mine and maybe becoming co-author of this one? At least I have already convinced Titus to schedule P1739 directly in LEWG (without going through Incubator) and doing it as early as possible so that it can go to LWG before the week is over (in case LEWG accepts it). Maybe we can squeeze this into the same slot.
I guess this also depends on whether we can get Casey behind it. He suggested mild support for P1739 in #ranges.
This contains some minor and some slightly bigger changes. Most minor changes are fixes where you spoke of "the concept" (originally referring to a single concept) that I changed to referring to multiple concepts.
I have also added some more description on why I think
forwarding-rangeis the central requirement for this concept, although I am unsure if maybe you and me actually were talking about different things. You don't wantstd::vectorto modelreconstructible-range, right? We are targetingO(1)reconstruction and we are expecting the reconstructed object to be independent of the original, right? Then we needforwarding-rangeIMHO!I will add some more descriptions in between the lines.
Regarding the process: I don't know how these things go usually. Since this subsumes my paper, I would be fine with "retracting" mine and maybe becoming co-author of this one? At least I have already convinced Titus to schedule P1739 directly in LEWG (without going through Incubator) and doing it as early as possible so that it can go to LWG before the week is over (in case LEWG accepts it). Maybe we can squeeze this into the same slot.
I guess this also depends on whether we can get Casey behind it. He suggested mild support for P1739 in #ranges.