From 50e645261c393efcabcf265ca41c70ca7c8ec153 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jeremy Siek <jeremy.siek@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:21:40 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] responses to Dave's comments

[SVN r20835]
---
 doc/issues.rst | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/issues.rst b/doc/issues.rst
index 007fd24..8c443b6 100755
--- a/doc/issues.rst
+++ b/doc/issues.rst
@@ -86,20 +86,32 @@ The same problem applies to ``is_swappable``.
    which requires the trait to be derived from either true_type or
    false_type (as of the last LWG meeting).
 
+.. I must not have been there for that. Could you handle
+   giving it attention? -JGS
+
+
 3. Change ``iterator_tag`` to::
 
      template <class Value, class Reference, class Traversal>
      struct iterator_tag;
 
-   The argument for ``Value`` must be the ``value_type`` of the
-   iterator, possibly const-qualified, ``Reference`` must be the
-   return type of ``operator*`` [*]_, and ``Traversal`` the
-   traversal tag for the iterator.
+   If ``iterator_tag`` is to be used as the ``iterator_category``
+   for iterator type ``X``, then the argument for ``Value`` must be
+   the ``value_type`` for iterator ``X``, possibly const-qualified
+   to indicate a non-writable iterator. The argument for
+   ``Reference`` must be the
+   return type of ``operator*`` [*]_, and the argument for ``Traversal``
+   must be the traversal tag for the iterator.
 
 .. I think the language above is still too informal.  There is no
    "the iterator", when considering iterator_tag in isolation.
    Perhaps that language belongs in a non-normative note
 
+.. I'm not so sure it makes sense to talk of iterator_tag in
+   isolation. I've added some more words to spell out the
+   connection between "the iterator" and the iterator_tag. -JGS
+
+
    ``iterator_tag<Value,Reference,Traversal>`` is required to be
    convertible to both ``Traversal`` tag and also to the
    ``iterator_category`` type specified by the following
@@ -127,6 +139,7 @@ The same problem applies to ``is_swappable``.
              return output_iterator_tag;
            
 .. I reformatted the code for legibility; sorry.
+.. No problemo. -JGS
   
 .. [*] Instead of saying "return type of operator*", we could have
    said ``iterator_traits<X>::reference``. However, the standard
@@ -135,6 +148,13 @@ The same problem applies to ``is_swappable``.
    cases it explicitly differs from the return type of
    ``operator*``, for example see ``istreambuf_iterator``.
 
+.. Hmm, istreambuf_iterator does not fit nicely into the new iterator
+   categories. It's reference type is charT& but the return type
+   of operator* is charT. In the new concepts, these are required to be
+   the same type. We'll have to deal with this in the
+   reference problem paper. -JGS
+
+
 
 4. Change the specification of ``traversal_category`` to::
 
@@ -195,8 +215,8 @@ The same problem applies to ``is_swappable``.
    deduce the appropriate old iterator category. The 
    ``Value`` and ``Reference`` parameters fill this need.
    Note that this solution cleans up the issue that John
-   Maddock raised on the reflector (``c++std-lib-12187``) about the non-uniformity
-   of the lvalue bit.
+   Maddock raised on the reflector (``c++std-lib-12187``) about the
+   non-uniformity of the lvalue bit.
 
 4. The changes to the specification of ``traversal_category`` are a 
    direct result of the changes to ``iterator_tag``.