Created on 2013-09-21.00:00:00 last changed 131 months ago
Proposed resolution:
This wording is relative to N3691.
Edit [back.insert.iter.cons]/1 as indicated:
explicit back_insert_iterator(Container& x);-1- Effects: Initializes container with
&xstd::addressof(x).
Edit [front.insert.iter.cons]/1 as indicated:
explicit front_insert_iterator(Container& x);-1- Effects: Initializes container with
&xstd::addressof(x).
Edit [insert.iter.cons]/1 as indicated:
insert_iterator(Container& x, typename Container::iterator i);-1- Effects: Initializes container with
&xstd::addressof(x) and iter with i.
[ Issaquah 2014-02-11: Move to Immediate ]
[back.insert.iter.cons]/1, [front.insert.iter.cons]/1, and [insert.iter.cons]/1 say "Initializes container with &x", which doesn't defend against containers overloading operator&(). Containers are now required to have such defenses for their elements, so we may as well be consistent here.
History | |||
---|---|---|---|
Date | User | Action | Args |
2014-02-27 17:03:20 | admin | set | status: wp -> c++14 |
2014-02-20 13:52:38 | admin | set | status: immediate -> wp |
2014-02-13 06:35:03 | admin | set | messages: + msg6835 |
2014-02-13 06:35:03 | admin | set | status: new -> immediate |
2013-10-11 21:22:24 | admin | set | messages: + msg6716 |
2013-09-21 00:00:00 | admin | create |