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

<string_view> is missing from the list of headers in [iterator.range]/1: #963

Closed
mclow opened this issue Oct 31, 2016 · 2 comments
Closed

<string_view> is missing from the list of headers in [iterator.range]/1: #963

mclow opened this issue Oct 31, 2016 · 2 comments

Comments

@mclow
Copy link
Contributor

mclow commented Oct 31, 2016

(from a request to open an LWG issue by Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña johelegp@gmail.com; I'm opening this issue because I believe its' editorial):

[string.view.synop]/1 states:

The function templates defined in 20.2.2 and 24.7 are available when <string_view> is included.

But the list of headers in 24.7 or [iterator.range]/1 is missing <string_view>.

Proposed resolution:

This wording is relative to N4606.

Modify [iterator.range]/1:

In addition to being available via inclusion of the header, the function templates in 24.7 are available when any of the following headers are included: , , <forward_list>, , , , , , <string_view>, <unordered_map>, <unordered_set>, and .
@JohelEGP
Copy link
Contributor

JohelEGP commented Nov 1, 2016

PR #962 fixes this.

I had submitted an earlier LWG issue, to which Daniel Krügler replied that it might be an editorial request, and pointed me to open an issue here (I had failed to find this place for submitting editorial fixes.)

I opted to do PRs for both issues instead, because I believe the wiki here suggests that these are editorial fixes as they fall in the "obvious inconsistencies" category.

@mclow
Copy link
Contributor Author

mclow commented Nov 1, 2016

I saw that Daniel suggested you submit an editorial request for a different problem (iterator_traits<const T*>), but didn't see your other P/R for the second one. Thanks for doing this.

@mclow mclow closed this as completed Nov 1, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@mclow @JohelEGP