Mark 2259 and 2473 as complete. Add some more notes

llvm-svn: 249363

libcxx/www/kona.html

@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@
 	<tr><td><a href="http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2219">2219</a></td><td><tt><i>INVOKE</i></tt>-ing a pointer to member with a <tt>reference_wrapper</tt> as the object expression</td><td>Kona</td><td></td></tr>
 	<tr><td><a href="http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2244">2244</a></td><td>Issue on <tt>basic_istream::seekg</tt></td><td>Kona</td><td></td></tr>
 	<tr><td><a href="http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2250">2250</a></td><td>Follow-up On Library Issue 2207</td><td>Kona</td><td></td></tr>
-	<tr><td><a href="http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2259">2259</a></td><td>Issues in 17.6.5.5 rules for member functions</td><td>Kona</td><td></td></tr>
+	<tr><td><a href="http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2259">2259</a></td><td>Issues in 17.6.5.5 rules for member functions</td><td>Kona</td><td>Complete</td></tr>
 	<tr><td><a href="http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2336">2336</a></td><td><tt>is_trivially_constructible/is_trivially_assignable</tt> traits are always false</td><td>Kona</td><td></td></tr>
 	<tr><td><a href="http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2353">2353</a></td><td><tt>std::next</tt> is over-constrained</td><td>Kona</td><td></td></tr>
 	<tr><td><a href="http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2367">2367</a></td><td><tt>pair</tt> and <tt>tuple</tt> are not correctly implemented for <tt>is_constructible</tt> with no args</td><td>Kona</td><td></td></tr>
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@
 	<tr><td><a href="http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2462">2462</a></td><td><tt>std::ios_base::failure</tt> is overspecified</td><td>Kona</td><td></td></tr>
 	<tr><td><a href="http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2466">2466</a></td><td><tt>allocator_traits::max_size()</tt> default behavior is incorrect</td><td>Kona</td><td>Patch Ready</td></tr>
 	<tr><td><a href="http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2469">2469</a></td><td>Wrong specification of Requires clause of <tt>operator[]</tt> for <tt>map</tt> and <tt>unordered_map</tt></td><td>Kona</td><td></td></tr>
-	<tr><td><a href="http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2473">2473</a></td><td><tt>basic_filebuf</tt>'s relation to C <tt>FILE</tt> semantics</td><td>Kona</td><td></td></tr>
+	<tr><td><a href="http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2473">2473</a></td><td><tt>basic_filebuf</tt>'s relation to C <tt>FILE</tt> semantics</td><td>Kona</td><td>Complete</td></tr>
 	<tr><td><a href="http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2476">2476</a></td><td><tt>scoped_allocator_adaptor</tt> is not assignable</td><td>Kona</td><td></td></tr>
 	<tr><td><a href="http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2477">2477</a></td><td>Inconsistency of wordings in <tt>std::vector::erase()</tt> and <tt>std::deque::erase()</tt></td><td>Kona</td><td></td></tr>
 	<tr><td><a href="http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2483">2483</a></td><td><tt>throw_with_nested()</tt> should use <tt>is_final</tt></td><td>Kona</td><td>Complete</td></tr>
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@
 <li>2101 - Need to write some careful test cases. In particular, need to check function types with/without const/ref qualifiers.  Currently we get this wrong. Installing metashell to play with these.</li>
 <li><i>2111 - Resolved an ambiguity by calling it out. No code change required.</i></li>
 <li>2119 - Hashes for all integral and enumeration types. Research needed</li>
-<li><i>2127 - Add a new member to raw_storage_iterator. Looks simple.</i></li>
+<li><i>2127 - Add a new member to raw_storage_iterator. Looks simple.</i> <b>Patch Available</b></li>
 <li><i>2133 - We do this already; thanks Eric.</i></li>
 <li>2156 - check and make sure that we already do this. Write a test.</li>
 <li>2181 - I suspect that this will not require any code changes, but will need to be read carefully.</li>
@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@
 <li>2219 - Punt to Eric</li>
 <li>2244 - We don't do this; easy fix; think about how to test it.</li>
 <li>2250 - Looks like wording cleanup. Need to check more closely, but I think there's no code changes here.</li>
-<li>2259 - I don't think that there's any code changes needed here.</li>
+<li><i>2259 - No code changes needed here.</i></li>
 <li>2336 - <b>Check later</b></li>
 <li>2353 - Simple change, needs a test. (test probably used to exist)</li>
 <li>2367 - Ask Eric to do it. Tests.</li>
@@ -125,10 +125,10 @@
 <li>2385 - Removing broken signatures. Only question is "how far back"?</li>
 <li><i>2435 - Wording cleanup; no code change required</i></li>
 <li>2447 - I don't know if there's any work here.</li>
-<li>2462 - No code change necessary. Are there tests here? Should there be?</li>
-<li><i>2466 - Simple change; need a test.</i></li>
-<li>2469 - I suspect this is just wording cleanup, but it needs a closer look.</li>
-<li>2473 - I suspect this is just wording cleanup, but it needs a closer look.</li>
+<li>2462 - No code change necessary. I don't see any tests. I think that there should be</li>
+<li><i>2466 - Simple change; need a test.</i> <b>Patch Available</b></li>
+<li>2469 - This is a followon to 2464, which we're done. This restates a bunch of operations in terms of newer ops. Probably refactoring to do here, but tests shouldn't change.</li>
+<li><i>2473 - There are two changes here; one to <tt>filebuf::seekpos</tt> and the other to <tt>filebuf::sync</tt>. We do both of these already.</i></li>
 <li>2476 - Simple change; need tests.</li>
 <li>2477 - Definitely wording cleanup, but check the tests.</li>
 <li><i>2483 - We already do this.</i></li>
@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@
 <li>2485 - Ask Eric to do it. </li>
 <li>2486 - Lots of code changes, all mechanical. Tests will be sizable.</li>
 <li>2487 - <b>Don't know</b></li>
-<li><i>2489 - Looks easy. Just add some NOEXCEPT, and tests.</i></li>
+<li><i>2489 - Looks easy. Just add some NOEXCEPT, and tests.</i> <b>Patch Available</b></li>
 <li><i>2492 - Wording cleanup; no code changes needed.</i></li>
 <li>2494 - My implementation of this (not checked in) already has these.</li>
 </ul>