That sounds non-editorial.

If you want me to submit an LWG issue, I'll take care of it.

That would be nice. Missing descriptions are not editorial.
(Missing index entries are, though.)

OK, I'll do that today. Thanks for the help!

Poor Chris revised P1035 no less than 16 times in Cologne. IIRC we wanted to specify keys and values directly in the synopsis simply as names for elements<0> and elements<1>. It looks like we made it half way there by striking [range.keys.adaptor] and [range.values.adaptor] - which specified views::keys and views::values - but failed to make the corresponding changes to the synopsis.

@morinmorin, if I may suggest a proposed resolution for your issue, I believe our intent was:

Change [ranges.syn] as follows:

 template<class R>
   using keys_view = elements_view<all_view<R>, 0>;
 template<class R>
   using values_view = elements_view<all_view<R>, 1>;
 
 namespace views {
   template<size_t N>
     inline constexpr unspecified elements = unspecified;
-  inline constexpr unspecified keys = unspecified;
-  inline constexpr unspecified values = unspecified;
+  inline constexpr auto keys = elements<0>;
+  inline constexpr auto values = elements<1>;
 }

LGTM

@CaseyCarter, thanks for the suggestion. I should have asked you for the help before sending the issue to LWG.

I'll soon resend a modified one that replaces the old PR

 -3- `keys_view` is an alias for `elements_view<all_view<R>, 0>`…
 
+-?- The name `views::keys` denotes a range adaptor object (24.7.1). 
+For some subexpression `E`, the expression `views::keys(E)` is 
+expression-equivalent to `elements_view<all_view<decltype((E))>, 0>{E}`.
 
 -4- `values_view` is an alias for `elements_view<all_view<R>, 1>`…
 
+-?- The name `views::values` denotes a range adaptor object (24.7.1). 
+For some subexpression `E`, the expression `views::values(E)` is 
+expression-equivalent to `elements_view<all_view<decltype((E))>, 1>{E}`.

with the suggested PR.

@morinmorin, do you have an LWG issue number for tracking?

@jensmaurer, I don't have an issue number yet. I'll post the number here, when I receive it. (I submitted another issue a day before submitting this to LWG, and that one got the number 3301 earlier today.)

A corresponding LWG issue has been created now: LWG 3302.

Status: WP