https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114477
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The notes say it was closed because you didn't want to work on it.
https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/1726#issuecomment-2014094319
It sounds like the Ranges study group supported the direction.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114477
--- Comment #6 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to Jiang An from comment #5)
> (In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #0)
> > Since P3059R0 is closed (although I feel bad about this)
>
> BTW, now I think this is somehow unfortunate.
> P3059 behaved like a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114477
--- Comment #5 from Jiang An ---
(In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #0)
> Since P3059R0 is closed (although I feel bad about this)
BTW, now I think this is somehow unfortunate.
P3059 behaved like a follow-up paper of P2711 IMO. Both papers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114477
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Changing them seems like a bad idea.
Maybe we could keep the pointer constructors for internal use (possibly making
them private and adding friend decls as needed) and *also* add the ones taking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114477
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114477
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114477
Jiang An changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||de34 at live dot cn
--- Comment #1 from
