https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103831
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #2) > Please let me add a digression, is the standard overconstrained the > definition of tiny_range? > In the current standard, it seems that only single_view and empty_view > satisfy tiny_range. However, std::array<int, 1> and span<int, 1> or even > int[1], in my opinion, should be valid Pattern types when V is an > input_range, because we can directly extract their size from the type, but > none of the three have a static size() function. This also means that the > constructor lazy_split_view(R&&, P&&) has an *extremely* limited set of P > when R is an input_range. That sounds reasonable to me FWIW. I believe the process for making such a change starts with sending a proposal paper to LEWG for consideration. I'm not sure if there are any existing papers about this.
