+1 to everything Giuseppe said.

IIUC, you're deleting "is cv-unqualified and" from the wording only because
it is redundant: none of the listed types are cv-qualified! This is
editorial and could be submitted right now today, just to get it out of the
way. I recommend doing that. If you don't front-load it, then please do add
a note somewhere in the paper explaining the rationale for deleting "is
cv-unqualified and", because the reader could wrongly assume it was
non-editorial.

–Arthur



On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 11:59 AM Giuseppe D'Angelo via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 26/02/2026 17:44, Jan Schultke via Std-Proposals wrote:
> > In short, this allows std::uniform_int_distribution<unsigned char> and
> > such things, which is currently IFNDR/compile-time UB. https://
> > cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue2326 <https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/
> > issue2326> previously attempted the same, but was closed as NAD because
> > it was considered a feature request.
>
> I think yes, this should be a slam-dunk.
>
> Would it make sense to say that it's implementation-defined whether
> extended integer types are supported (by each template in [rand], that
> is), rather jumping straight into UB? Aim is to reduce the surface of
> gratuitous UB (UB that may just work™ on certain implementations so why
> not make it official.)
>
> Thank you,
> --
> Giuseppe D'Angelo
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>