Issue 2123 - WG21 LWG Issues
Title
merge() allocator requirements for lists versus forward lists
Status
c++14
Section
[forward.list.ops]
Submitter
Nicolai Josuttis

Created on 2012-01-15.00:00:00 last changed 130 months ago

Messages

msg6273 (view)
Date: 2012-11-03.04:16:46

Proposed resolution:

This wording is relative to the FDIS.

  1. Add a new paragraph after [forwardlist.ops] p19 as indicated:

    void merge(forward_list<T,Allocator>& x);
void merge(forward_list<T,Allocator>&& x);
template <class Compare> void merge(forward_list<T,Allocator>& x, Compare comp);
template <class Compare> void merge(forward_list<T,Allocator>&& x, Compare comp);

    […]

    -19- Effects: […]

    -?- Remarks: The behavior is undefined if this->get_allocator() != x.get_allocator().

msg6007 (view)
Date: 2012-11-03.04:16:46

[ 2012, Portland: applied to WP ]
msg5979 (view)
Date: 2012-02-12.18:36:43

[ 2012, Kona ]

Move to Ready.

msg5978 (view)
Date: 2012-01-15.00:00:00

Sub-clause [list.ops], p24 states for lists:

The behavior is undefined if this->get_allocator() != x.get_allocator().

But there is nothing like that for forward lists in [forwardlist.ops], although I would expect the same undefined behavior there.

History
Date User Action Args
2014-02-20 13:20:35adminsetstatus: wp -> c++14
2012-11-03 04:16:46adminsetmessages: + msg6273
2012-10-25 12:46:45adminsetstatus: voting -> wp
2012-10-16 15:35:12adminsetstatus: ready -> voting
2012-02-12 18:36:43adminsetmessages: + msg6007
2012-02-12 18:36:43adminsetstatus: new -> ready
2012-01-15 21:53:04adminsetmessages: + msg5979
2012-01-15 00:00:00admincreate