*This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of Resolved status.*

**Section:** 25.6.10 [mismatch] **Status:** Resolved
**Submitter:** Geoffrey Romer **Opened:** 2018-12-20 **Last modified:** 2020-05-02

**Priority: **0

**View all other** issues in [mismatch].

**View all issues with** Resolved status.

**Discussion:**

Consider the following code:

std::vector<int> v1 = {1, 2, 3, 4}; std::vector<int> v2 = {1, 2, 3, 5}; auto result = std::mismatch(v1.begin(), v1.begin() + 2, v2.begin(), v2.begin() + 2);

The current wording of [mismatch] seems to require `result` to be `{v1.begin() + 3, v2.begin() + 3}`, because 3
is the smallest integer `n` such that `*(v1.begin() + n) != *(v2.begin + n)`. In other words, if there's a
mismatch that's reachable from `first1` and `first2`, then `std::mismatch` must find and return it,
even if it's beyond the end iterators passed by the user.

This is doubly unimplementable: the library has no way of knowing that it's safe to keep going past the end of the user-supplied range, and even if it could, doing so would violate the complexity requirements. More importantly, it would violate the fundamental convention that STL algorithms operate on user-supplied ranges, not on the underlying containers.

*[2019-01-26 Priority to 0 and Status to Tentatively Ready after discussions on the reflector]*

During that reflector discussion several contributers argued in favour for changing the current wording in 25.6.10 [mismatch] p3 from "smallest integer" to "smallest nonnegative integer". This minor wording delta has also been added to the original proposed wording.

**Previous resolution [SUPERSEDED]:**

This wording is relative to N4791.

Change 25.6.10 [mismatch] as indicated:

template<class InputIterator1, class InputIterator2> constexpr pair<InputIterator1, InputIterator2> mismatch(InputIterator1 first1, InputIterator1 last1, InputIterator2 first2); […] namespace ranges { template<InputIterator I1, Sentinel<I1> S1, InputIterator I2, Sentinel<I2> S2, class Proj1 = identity, class Proj2 = identity, IndirectRelation<projected<I1, Proj1>, projected<I2, Proj2>> Pred = ranges::equal_to<>> constexpr mismatch_result<I1, I2> mismatch(I1 first1, S1 last1, I2 first2, S2 last2, Pred pred = {}, Proj1 proj1 = {}, Proj2 proj2 = {}); template<InputRange R1, InputRange R2, class Proj1 = identity, class Proj2 = identity, IndirectRelation<projected<iterator_t<R1>, Proj1>, projected<iterator_t<R2>, Proj2>> Pred = ranges::equal_to<>> constexpr mismatch_result<safe_iterator_t<R1>, safe_iterator_t<R2>> mismatch(R1&& r1, R2&& r2, Pred pred = {}, Proj1 proj1 = {}, Proj2 proj2 = {}); }-1- Let

last2befirst2 + (last1 - first1)for the overloads with no parameterlast2orr2.-2- Let

be:E-?- Let

(2.1) —

!(*(first1 + n) == *(first2 + n))for the overloads with no parameterpred,(2.2) —

pred(*(first1 + n), *(first2 + n)) == falsefor the overloads with a parameterpredand no parameterproj1,(2.3) —

!invoke(pred, invoke(proj1, *(first1 + n)), invoke(proj2, *(first2 + n)))for the overloads with both parameterspredandproj1.beNmin(last1 - first1, last2 - first2).-3-

Returns:{ first1 + n, first2 + n }, wherenis the smallest nonnegative integer such thatholds, orEif no such integer less than~~min(last1 - first1, last2 - first2)~~Nexists.N-4-

Complexity:At mostapplications of the corresponding predicate and any projections.~~min(last1 - first1, last2 - first2)~~N

*[2019-03-15; Daniel comments]*

The editorial issue #2611 had been
resolved via this pull request #2613.
The editorial changes should make the suggested wording changes obsolete and I recommend to close
this issue as **Resolved**.

*[2020-05-02; Reflector discussions]*

It seems that the editorial change has fixed the issue already. If the issue author objects, we can reopen it. Therefore:

Resolved by editorial pull request #2613.

**Rationale:**

**Proposed resolution:**