Proposed resolution:

This wording is relative to the FDIS.

1. Change the class template weak_ptr synopsis in [util.smartptr.weak] as indicated:

   namespace std {
     template<class T> class weak_ptr {
     public:
       typedef T element_type;
       […]
       template<class U> bool owner_before(shared_ptr<U> const& b) const;
       template<class U> bool owner_before(weak_ptr<U> const& b) const;
     };
     […]
   }
   

2. Change the prototypes in [util.smartptr.weak.obs] before p6 as indicated:

   template<class U> bool owner_before(shared_ptr<U> const& b) const;
   template<class U> bool owner_before(weak_ptr<U> const& b) const;
   

[ 2012, Portland: applied to WP ]

[ 2012, Kona ]

Move to Ready.

Is there any reason why weak_ptr::owner_before member function templates are not const-qualified?

Daniel Krügler:

I don't think so. To the contrary, without these to be const member function templates, the semantics of the specializations owner_less<weak_ptr<T>> and owner_less<shared_ptr<T>> described in [util.smartptr.ownerless] is unclear.

It is amusing to note that this miss has remain undetected from the accepted paper n2637 on. For the suggested wording changes see below.