+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@lists.isocpp.org> 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@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals