On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 at 16:04, Yuao Ma <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 4:41 AM Jonathan Wakely <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 at 15:04, Jonathan Wakely <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 at 16:23, Yuao Ma <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Jonathan, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the information about the standard wording. Regarding this > > > > patch, I'm wondering does it need any further refinement? > > > > > > No, I don't think you need to make any changes. > > > > I see this was pushed to trunk - please wait for explicit approval. > > > > Sorry for this, will do next time. > > > My last mail probably wasn't very clear, but I hadn't finished a final > > review. Not a big deal, since the patch is good. > > > > It turns out another change is needed though, because the test failure > > you got with __max_size_type should be SFINAE-friendly, because > > indices(1) should be expression equivalent to iota(0, 1). > > > > Yes, it occurs to me that since I'm using iota for the implementation, > I could directly use __can_iota_view as the type parameter. However, > I've chosen to use the integer_like concept mentioned in the paper > instead.
I think we need both, because __can_iota_view on its own would allow non-integer types like iterators. So we want to constrain it to types that are integer-like *and* valid for iota_view.
