[libcxx-commits] [libcxx] [libc++] Remove `optional::iterator` from experimental mode (PR #203782)

[Louis Dionne via libcxx-commits]

================
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@
 "`P2747R2 <https://wg21.link/P2747R2>`__","``constexpr`` placement new","2024-06 (St. Louis)","|Complete|","20","`#105427 <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/105427>`__",""
 "`P2997R1 <https://wg21.link/P2997R1>`__","Removing the common reference requirement from the indirectly invocable concepts","2024-06 (St. Louis)","|Complete|","19","`#105428 <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/105428>`__","Implemented as a DR against C++20."
 "`P2389R2 <https://wg21.link/P2389R2>`__","``dextents`` Index Type Parameter","2024-06 (St. Louis)","|Complete|","19","`#105429 <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/105429>`__",""
-"`P3168R2 <https://wg21.link/P3168R2>`__","Give ``std::optional`` Range Support","2024-06 (St. Louis)","|Complete|","22","`#105430 <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/105430>`__",""
----------------
ldionne wrote:

I think we should introduce `|Experimental|` here for the cases where we ship a feature experimentally. Otherwise, we mark the feature as `|Complete|` in our status pages, but in reality it's guarded by `-fexperimental-library`. This is what happened here: we never actually "shipped" `optional::iterator` in LLVM 22 -- we shipped an experimental version of it. That's why it's acceptable (IMO) to now ship it non-experimentally with a changed set of capabilities (not constexpr).

CC @frederick-vs-ja @philnik777 @Zingam what do you think about introducing `|Experimental|` for our status pages?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/203782