This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of NAD status.
forward_)list specialized remove algorithms are over constrainedSection: 23.3.7.6 [forward.list.ops], 23.3.9.5 [list.ops] Status: NAD Submitter: Daniel Krügler Opened: 2008-10-06 Last modified: 2023-02-07
Priority: Not Prioritized
View all other issues in [forward.list.ops].
View all issues with NAD status.
Discussion:
The signatures of forwardlist::remove and list::remove
defined in [forwardlist.ops] before 11 + 23.3.9.5 [list.ops] before 15:
requires EqualityComparable<T> void remove(const T& value);
are asymmetric to their predicate variants (which only require
Predicate, not EquivalenceRelation) and with the free algorithm
remove (which only require HasEqualTo). Also, nothing in the
pre-concept WP
N2723
implies that EqualityComparable should
be the intended requirement.
[ Batavia (2009-05): ]
We agree with the proposed resolution, but would like additional input from concepts experts.
Move to Review.
[ 2009-07-21 Alisdair adds: ]
Current rationale and wording for this issue is built around concepts. I suggest the issue reverts to Open status. I believe there is enough of an issue to review after concepts are removed from the WP to re-examine the issue in Santa Cruz, rather than resolve as NAD Concepts.
[ 2009-10-10 Daniel adds: ]
Recommend NAD: The concept-free wording as of N2960 has no longer the over-specified requirement
EqualityComparablefor the remove function that uses==. In fact, now the same test conditions exists as for the free algorithmremove(26.7.8 [alg.remove]). The error was introduced in the process of conceptifying.
[ 2009-10 Santa Cruz: ]
NAD, solved by the removal of concepts.
Proposed resolution:
Replace in [forwardlist.ops] before 11 and in 23.3.9.5 [list.ops] before 15
requiresEqualityComparable<T>HasEqualTo<T, T> void remove(const T& value);