Skip to content

[iterator.requirements.general] Revert indirectly_writable to *writ… #7471

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.

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 4, 2024

Conversation

Dani-Hub
Copy link
Member

@Dani-Hub Dani-Hub commented Dec 3, 2024

…able* definition

This fixes a misapplication of the 2019 Belfast meeting LWG motion 9 (P1878R1), which erroneously replaced the writable definition by the indirectly_writable concept (See issue #7470).

Fixes #7470

…able* definition

This fixes a misapplication of the 2019 Belfast meeting LWG motion 9 (P1878R1), which erroneously replaced the *writable* definition by the `indirectly_writable` concept.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Krügler <[email protected]>
Copy link
Member

@jwakely jwakely left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The paper only said to replace the uses of the writable concept, not all cases of the word "writable"

@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Dec 3, 2024

The change was part of 333b6eb i.e. #3451

It also changed:

@ -1258,16 +1272,16 @@ [iterator.concept.writable]
 \pnum
 \begin{note}
 The only valid use of an \tcode{operator*} is on the left side of the assignment statement.
-Assignment through the same value of the writable type happens only once.
+Assignment through the same value of the indirectly writable type happens only once.
 \end{note}

but I think this is OK.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Let's make it so.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer merged commit 861071a into cplusplus:main Dec 4, 2024
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Partially misapplied 2019 Belfast LWG Motion 9 - [iterator.requirements.general] p1 should keep using *writable*
4 participants