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

4312. Const and value category mismatch for allocator_arg_t/allocator_arg in the description of uses-allocator construction

Section: 20.2.8.2 [allocator.uses.construction] Status: New Submitter: Jiang An Opened: 2025-08-06 Last modified: 2025-08-09

Priority: Not Prioritized

View other active issues in [allocator.uses.construction].

View all other issues in [allocator.uses.construction].

View all issues with New status.

Discussion:

Currently, 20.2.8.2 [allocator.uses.construction] bullet 2.2 states:

Otherwise, if T has a constructor invocable as T(allocator_arg, alloc, args...) (leading-allocator convention), […]

However, when forming construction arguments in the utility functions, we're actually using cv-unqualified rvalue of allocator_arg_t, which can be inferred from using plain allocator_arg_t but not const allocator_arg_t& in 20.2.8.2 [allocator.uses.construction] bullet 5.2.

It seems that such mismatch was present even since C++11 (per N3337 [allocator.uses.construction]/1.2). If the use of plain allocator_arg_t is considered correct, I think we should fix the description.

Proposed resolution:

This wording is relative to this CD preview draft.

1. Modify 20.2.8.2 [allocator.uses.construction] as indicated:

   -2- The following utility functions support three conventions for passing alloc to a constructor:

   1. (2.1) — […]

   2. (2.2) — Otherwise, if T has a constructor invocable as T(allocator_argallocator_arg_t{}, alloc, args...) (leading-allocator convention), then uses-allocator construction chooses this constructor form.

   3. (2.3) — […]