Skip to content

Conversation

silverweed
Copy link
Contributor

The requirements for an iterator mandate that operator++() returns a reference to the iterator, not a copy.

@silverweed silverweed requested review from hahnjo and jblomer October 9, 2025 12:57
@silverweed silverweed self-assigned this Oct 9, 2025
@silverweed silverweed requested a review from pcanal as a code owner October 9, 2025 12:57
Copy link
Member

@pcanal pcanal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Oct 9, 2025

Test Results

    22 files      22 suites   3d 23h 22m 41s ⏱️
 3 690 tests  3 684 ✅ 0 💤  6 ❌
79 233 runs  79 219 ✅ 0 💤 14 ❌

For more details on these failures, see this check.

Results for commit 9c1932b.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

Also make the iterator an input_iterator rather than forward_iterator,
since it does not satisfy all forward iterator requirements (in particular
"f i and j are both dereferenceable, then i == j if and only if *i and
*j are bound to the same object.")
@silverweed
Copy link
Contributor Author

Update: I also changed the iterator tag from Forward to Input (see commit description)

@silverweed silverweed added the clean build Ask CI to do non-incremental build on PR label Oct 16, 2025
@silverweed silverweed closed this Oct 16, 2025
@silverweed silverweed reopened this Oct 16, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

clean build Ask CI to do non-incremental build on PR in:I/O

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants