Skip to content

Meta LWG issue: 2025-11 meeting #5837

@StephanTLavavej

Description

@StephanTLavavej

(Previous meta-issue: #5624)

At the November 2025 meeting, the following LWG issues were resolved in the C++ Working Paper.

❔ Not yet analyzed

  • Remaining issues.
    • All done!

❌ Not applicable

If an issue requires no action from implementers, we mark it as N/A.

  • Pure wording clarifications with nothing to implement (these can be changes to non-normative text like examples and informative notes, or wording cleanups to normative text that don't impact observable behavior).
    • LWG-4286 Some more feature-test macros for fully freestanding features are not marked freestanding
      • We're a hosted implementation.
    • LWG-4317 The meaning of "resource" in the Cpp17Destructible requirements is undefined
    • LWG-4377 Misleading note about lock-free property of std::atomic_ref
    • LWG-4440 Forward declarations of entities need "also in" entries
      • We define feature-test macros in all headers.
    • LWG-4462 Algorithm requirements don't describe semantics of s - i well
  • Something that increases the restrictions placed on users, but implementers aren't expected to enforce those restrictions.
  • Fixes for obviously broken wording, where implementers would have done the right thing anyways.
    • LWG-4451 make_shared should not refer to a type U[N] for runtime N

😸 Already implemented

Sometimes we cite LWG issues in product code comments as we're implementing their proposed resolutions. When the resolutions are officially accepted, we should remove the citations (as the default assumption is that we're implementing what the Standard says). If something is especially subtle, we can convert the citation to mention the relevant Standard section. Sometimes we should add test coverage, for example when the Standard begins requiring something that we were already doing but weren't explicitly testing for.

  • Already implemented, comments need to be removed, and messages need to cite the Standard.
  • Implemented without comments.
    • LWG-2991 variant copy constructor missing noexcept(see below)
      • Took me a while to find, but I believe this was implemented without any "strengthened" comments:

        STL/stl/inc/variant

        Lines 818 to 819 in ab6dec6

        _CONSTEXPR20 void _Construct_from(const _Variant_base& _That)
        noexcept(conjunction_v<is_nothrow_copy_constructible<_Types>...>) {
    • LWG-4020 extents::index-cast weirdness
    • LWG-4265 std::midpoint should not accept const bool
    • LWG-4269 unique_copy passes arguments to its predicate backwards
    • LWG-4275 std::dynamic_extent should also be defined in <mdspan>
    • LWG-4276 front() and back() are not hardened for zero-length std::arrays
    • LWG-4370 Comparison of optional<T> to T may be ill-formed

🩹 Patches an unimplemented feature

🐞 Not yet implemented

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    LWGLibrary Working Group issuemetaIssues about issues!resolvedSuccessfully resolved without a commit

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    Status

    Done

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions