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

[A. Jiang 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);
----------------
frederick-vs-ja wrote:

> Yes sorry. But given changes are necessary, should I fix the PR title wording?
> Do you think we should also apply LWG4242 within this scope? It seems rather small but I'm not fully sure about the implications.

Why changes were necessary? I don't think we shouldn't "fix" the PR title or implement LWG4242 together, as I think it's better to perform "pure" documentation update (and test improvement) in this PR.

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