[libcxx-commits] [clang] [libcxx] [llvm] Reapply "[Clang] Implement resolution for CWG1835 (#92957)" (PR #98547)

[Davis Herring via libcxx-commits]

opensdh wrote:

> You might want to know that CWG1835 is causing some disruption in the wild

I believe it, although the alternative (having to write `(it->end) < it->end` in the issue's example) seems like it would be just as user-hostile.

> I wonder if we should consider deploying that change _NOT_ as a DR such that it would only affect C++23+ conformance, that might alleviate some of the pain points.

If you think that would create fewer problems (like skew between libraries on their clients) than it solves, I'm not opposed to bringing that up in CWG.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98547