[libcxx-commits] [libcxx] [libc++] Mark LWG4084 as resolved (PR #206224)

[A. Jiang via libcxx-commits]

================
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@
 "`LWG4044 <https://wg21.link/LWG4044>`__","Confusing requirements for ``std::print`` on POSIX platforms","2024-11 (Wrocław)","","","`#118343 <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/118343>`__",""
 "`LWG4064 <https://wg21.link/LWG4064>`__","Clarify that ``std::launder`` is not needed when using the result of ``std::memcpy``","2024-11 (Wrocław)","","","`#118344 <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/118344>`__",""
 "`LWG4072 <https://wg21.link/LWG4072>`__","``std::optional`` comparisons: constrain harder","2024-11 (Wrocław)","","","`#118345 <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/118345>`__",""
-"`LWG4084 <https://wg21.link/LWG4084>`__","``std::fixed`` ignores ``std::uppercase``","2024-11 (Wrocław)","","","`#118346 <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/118346>`__",""
+"`LWG4084 <https://wg21.link/LWG4084>`__","``std::fixed`` ignores ``std::uppercase``","2024-11 (Wrocław)","|Complete|","","`#118346 <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/118346>`__",""
----------------
frederick-vs-ja wrote:

See a34db6f88937666d35a86d4aaa149e3506ecaec4. I think `Complete` (without version) is more suitable than `Nothing To Do`.

Maybe we can switch treat "initially complete" as implemented in ver 2.8 (per 3e519524c118651123eecf60c2bbc5d65ad9bac3) but this should be consistently done in another PR.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/206224