Proposed resolution:

This wording is relative to N4594.

[Drafting note: The suggested wording for this issue also repairs the information loss that had been caused by the third bullet of the proposed resolution of 2704]

1. Change [fs.dir.itr.members] as indicated:

   directory_iterator& operator++();
   directory_iterator& increment(error_code& ec) noexcept;
   

   -10- Effects: As specified by for the prefix increment operation of Input iterators ([input.iterators]).

2. Change [fs.rec.dir.itr.members] as indicated:

   recursive_directory_iterator& operator++();
   recursive_directory_iterator& increment(error_code& ec) noexcept;
   

   […]

   -27- Effects: As specified by for the prefix increment operation of Input iterators ([input.iterators]), except that: […]

[ 2016-06 Oulu ]

Moved to P0/Ready during issues prioritization.

Friday: status to Immediate

Setting X as being either directory_iterator or recursive_directory_iterator there exists a member function in X,

X& increment(error_code& ec) noexcept;

whose effects are described as:

As specified by Input iterators (24.2.3).

which is somewhat surprising, because for input iterators there is no call expression naming increment specified.

The intention here is to consider increment as a another name for the prefix increment operator of iterators, but that needs to be expressed somewhere.