[libcxx-commits] [libcxx] [libc++][ranges] Mark LWG3664 as resolved (PR #210550)

[Lucas Mellone via libcxx-commits]

================
@@ -86,11 +86,11 @@ struct __distance {
   }
 
   template <class _Ip, sized_sentinel_for<decay_t<_Ip>> _Sp>
-  [[nodiscard]] _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI constexpr iter_difference_t<_Ip> operator()(_Ip&& __first, _Sp __last) const {
+  [[nodiscard]] _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI constexpr iter_difference_t<decay_t<_Ip>> operator()(_Ip&& __first, _Sp __last) const {
     if constexpr (sized_sentinel_for<_Sp, __remove_cvref_t<_Ip>>) {
       return __last - __first;
     } else {
-      return __last - decay_t<_Ip>(__first);
+      return __last - static_cast<decay_t<_Ip>>(__first);
----------------
lknknm wrote:

Question about this:
The implementation in the standard is the same as above (https://eel.is/c++draft/range.iter.op.distance), but in the LWG3664 proposal it is:
```suggestion
      return __last - static_cast<decay_t<_Ip>&>(__first);
```

Which one should prevail in the scope of this PR?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/210550