Proposed resolution:

Change [numeric.limits]:

template<class Regular T> class numeric_limits<const T>;
template<class Regular T> class numeric_limits<volatile T>;
template<class Regular T> class numeric_limits<const volatile T>;

[ 2009-05-25 Howard adds: ]

A c++std-lib thread starting at c++std-lib-23880 has cast doubt that NAD is the correct resolution of this issue. Indeed the discussion also casts doubt that the current proposed wording is the correct resolution as well. Personally I'm inclined to reset the status to Open. However I'm reverting the status to that which it had prior to the Batavia recommendation. I'm setting back to Review.

[ Batavia (2009-05): ]

The Working Draft does not in general repeat a primary template's constraints in any specializations. Move to NAD.

[ Post Summit: ]

Alisdair recommends NAD as the partial specializations are already constrained by requirements on the primary template.

[ Summit: ]

Alisdair will provide a solution as part of treatment of axioms and LWG 902.

Addresses JP 26

numeric_limits [partial specializations] does not use concept.