From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 01F33385843A; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:16:59 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 01F33385843A
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1711527420;
	bh=k2pP+08CRG3VgdQPd++SAv9EPC/zHmbr+9c/UXMJwFk=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=EY1sZLGZNeCablciPzLUl0MdBrPBvYLA5EVDlYr8rpRFK8GpX1HDcp1RRiZEq3VK3
	 eUMZjTHtSQA0w+UZOBoZV4DppO48IhGndOazj7U1DaJN18Xq6UsGKTnKDPhAHVlfnE
	 w7zu5Ln57iyM+lQo/vaR6SJx6TXYpnMUh6g0qX5g=
From: "hewillk at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/114477] The user-defined constructor of
 filter_view::iterator is not fully compliant with the standard
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:16:56 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hewillk at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-114477-4-VCMpdEwf2L@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114477-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114477-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D114477

--- Comment #6 from =E5=BA=B7=E6=A1=93=E7=91=8B <hewillk at gmail dot com> =
---
(In reply to Jiang An from comment #5)
> (In reply to =E5=BA=B7=E6=A1=93=E7=91=8B from comment #0)
> > Since P3059R0 is closed (although I feel bad about this)
>=20
> BTW, now I think this is somehow unfortunate.
> P3059 behaved like a follow-up paper of P2711 IMO. Both papers effectively
> suggested that "some design choices of C++23 views are better, let's apply
> them to C++20 views".

You are absolutely right. Is there any way to reopen it? I recall that it w=
as
just because the committee didn't want to spend time on it.=