[libcxx-commits] [libcxx] [libc++][ranges] Resolve LWG4242 (PR #211568)

[A. Jiang via libcxx-commits]

================
@@ -142,7 +142,7 @@
 "`LWG4235 <https://wg21.link/LWG4235>`__","``cache_latest_view`` and ``to_input_view`` miss ``reserve_hint``","2025-06 (Sofia)","","","`#148219 <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/148219>`__",""
 "`LWG4236 <https://wg21.link/LWG4236>`__","``chunk_view::outer-iterator::value_type`` should provide ``reserve_hint``","2025-06 (Sofia)","","","`#148220 <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/148220>`__",""
 "`LWG4239 <https://wg21.link/LWG4239>`__","``flat_map``'s transparent comparator no longer works for string literals","2025-06 (Sofia)","","","`#148223 <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/148223>`__",""
-"`LWG4242 <https://wg21.link/LWG4242>`__","``ranges::distance`` does not work with volatile iterators","2025-06 (Sofia)","","","`#148224 <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/148224>`__",""
+"`LWG4242 <https://wg21.link/LWG4242>`__","``ranges::distance`` does not work with volatile iterators","2025-06 (Sofia)","|Complete|","24","`#148224 <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/148224>`__",""
----------------
frederick-vs-ja wrote:

> Sorry, to check in what sense you mean?

I meant that I want to
1. Make this PR just mark LWG4242 was implemented in LLVM 14 and improve tests.
2. Have a follow-up PR to make the whole `operator()` consistent with the current standard wording, which should be NFC.

I don't want to add "a comment in this `operator()` signaling that with the current implementation we are satisfying both LWG3664 and LWG4242 as the wording will be slightly different", because I think we will make the implementation strategy of this `operator()` consistent with the standard wording very soon. I believe that the comment, if created, won't live for more than 2 weeks.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/211568