From 62c853b04ec05735b442355a1aaf25bfa9df0207 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Daniel=20Kr=C3=BCgler?= Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 18:01:04 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] [expected.object.cons] Reorder arguemnts of is_same_v for consistency During the discussion of LWG 4222 it was noticed that [expected.object.cons] bullet (23.2) uses an atypical order of the is_same_v arguments, especially since this issue adds another bullet. To enforce consistency, the `remove_cvref_t` argument is no also used as first (instead of second) argument in that bullet. --- source/utilities.tex | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/source/utilities.tex b/source/utilities.tex index 5172585905..d338526754 100644 --- a/source/utilities.tex +++ b/source/utilities.tex @@ -7789,7 +7789,7 @@ \item \tcode{is_same_v, in_place_t>} is \tcode{false}; and \item -\tcode{is_same_v>} is \tcode{false}; and +\tcode{is_same_v>, expected} is \tcode{false}; and \item \tcode{remove_cvref_t} is not a specialization of \tcode{unexpected}; and \item