[res.on.requirements] Not sufficiently clear on transitiveness and disjunctions LWG 3429 #3912
Labels
lwg
Issue must be reviewed by LWG.
not-editorial
Issue is not deemed editorial; the editorial issue is kept open for tracking.
With this wording:
random_access_range<span<int>>
impose any semantic requirement at all? Because its specification is only code.viewable_range<span<int>>
? Is it clear that we're only requiring transitively modeling concepts only in the first part of the disjunction which evaluates totrue
(soborrowed_range
and notview
)?viewable_range<drop_view<span<int>>>
does it the other way around?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: