Open jwakely opened 1 year ago
This may be related to P2550 (#1210).
@inbal2l have Ranges see this first.
SG9 and LWG met jointly in St. Louis to review this issue. We took the following poll:
SG9 and LWG believe this is not a defect, but we do agree that there are inconsistencies that need a paper to address more thoroughly.
SF | F | N | A | SA |
---|---|---|---|---|
6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Unanimous consent
https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3868
LWG would like LEWG to consider this Priority 4 issue at some point. Is this something we might want to do?