Implement resolution of LWG-3449 for take_view

[miscco]

Addresses #1446

Fixes #1463.

[CaseyCarter]

@miscco @StephanTLavavej FYI I pushed a commit to change the names _Counted_Iter and _Base_Ty to be consistent with our naming conventions (snakes and camels don't mix) and to correct the constraint on the new operator== overload.

[StephanTLavavej]

@miscco @CaseyCarter Does this indicate that we're missing operator== test coverage?

[CaseyCarter]

@miscco @CaseyCarter Does this indicate that we're missing operator== test coverage?

Yes: the take_view test passes with the new operator== commented out. We need to investigate. (Maybe our test ranges all model simple-view?)

[CaseyCarter]

Maybe our test ranges all model simple-view?

Why yes, yes they do.

[miscco]

I would suggest that we merge this and then fix the simple_view issue globally.

I believe there will be sufficient breakage coming from it for many PRs

[CaseyCarter]

I would suggest that we merge this and then fix the simple_view issue globally.

I believe there will be sufficient breakage coming from it for many PRs

I agree; I've updated #1409 to include addressing this problem in all of the view tests. I'll move this to Final Review and we'll see if @StephanTLavavej agrees with that strategy.

[StephanTLavavej]

That strategy sounds good to me, thanks. I've pushed a merge to test this with 16.9 Preview 2 (no conflicts).

[StephanTLavavej]

Thanks for implementing this LWG issue resolution and increasing the crystalline perfection of ranges! 💎 😸