Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[list.ops] p12 has Effects in the Requires paragraph #796

Closed
jwakely opened this issue Jul 6, 2016 · 4 comments
Closed

[list.ops] p12 has Effects in the Requires paragraph #796

jwakely opened this issue Jul 6, 2016 · 4 comments
Assignees
@jensmaurer
Labels
lwg Issue must be reviewed by LWG.

Comments

@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Jul 6, 2016

Requires: [first, last) is a valid range in x. The result is undefined if position is an iterator in the range [first, last). Pointers and references to the moved elements of x now refer to those same elements but as members of *this. Iterators referring to the moved elements will continue to refer to their elements, but they now behave as iterators into *this, not into x.

What are the third and fourth sentences doing in a Requires paragraph?
@burblebee
Copy link
Contributor

Unless this was incorrectly applied by the editor from the original paper (was it?), I'd say this is an LWG issue.

I've asked this question before - how does one turn an edit issue into an LWG/CWG issue? Is there a process for that?

@burblebee burblebee added the lwg Issue must be reviewed by LWG. label Jul 7, 2016
@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Jul 7, 2016

There's probably no safer way than to email lwgchair with a paste of the issue. The github issues are too transient to be referenced; they can be edited or deleted on a whim.

@burblebee
Copy link
Contributor

Ok. Thanks.

email sent to lwgchair - closing this as an edit issue.

@jwakely
Copy link
Member Author

jwakely commented Jul 7, 2016

Unless this was incorrectly applied by the editor from the original paper (was it?), I'd say this is an LWG issue.

Hard to tell, that wording appeared some time between C++03 and C++11, but I haven't tracked down when exactly. The original text just said that it invalidates iterators referring to the spliced elements, so I'd guess that was expanded to the new wording, but not moved to a more suitable paragraph.

I'm not sure it needs to be a defect report, the meaning of the words is entirely clear, moving them to a different paragraph will have no normative effect.

@burblebee burblebee reopened this Jul 8, 2016
jensmaurer added a commit to jensmaurer/draft that referenced this issue Dec 13, 2016
@jensmaurer
[list.ops] Move effects to 'Effects' element.
5b9da40 
Also reorder the elements so that 'Requires' is before 'Effects'.

Fixes cplusplus#796.
@jensmaurer jensmaurer mentioned this issue Dec 13, 2016
Merged
@jensmaurer jensmaurer self-assigned this Dec 13, 2016
tkoeppe pushed a commit that referenced this issue Dec 13, 2016
@jensmaurer @tkoeppe
[list.ops] Move effects to 'Effects' element. (#1221)
1894a77 
Also reorder the elements so that 'Requires' is before 'Effects'.

Fixes #796.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@jensmaurer jensmaurer

Labels
lwg Issue must be reviewed by LWG.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@jwakely @tkoeppe @burblebee @jensmaurer