[libcxx][docs] updates the ranges status paper

[cjdb]

Summary

• indicates whether work has been started or completed
• consolidates content that was split for dependency reasons (iff everything has been merged)
• makes things a lot more fine-grained
• turns sub-CSVs into lists
• puts links into description section and removes patch column
• adds links to c++draft on occasion

These changes heavily prioritise the the reader of the generated HTML
file, not the source.

[zoecarver]

1. Seems we're missing drop_view (and always have been).
2. Where are the other algorithms? Is that a different paper?
3. This is me being pedantic: for some reason some of these are left-justified and others aren't (maybe >1 item is centered). Is there some way to fix this (so they're all left-justified)?

libcxx/docs/OneRangesProposalStatus.csv

118

The formatting here is off.

140

In progress: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103056

144

In progress: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103208

[zoecarver]

BTW, should have said this above, this is a really great improvement. Thank you for taking the time to look up the progress/reviews for all of these and make this cleanup.

[cjdb]

In D103295#2787355, @zoecarver wrote:

2. Where are the other algorithms? Is that a different paper?

They're (mostly) in P0896. I don't think we got around to adding these because there's >100 of them. Now that we're starting to fix our eye on algorithms, we should probably start thinking about adding them (but not in this patch).

1. Seems we're missing drop_view (and always have been).

This doc currently cares only about P0896 ± some small edits that I made to make the doc more readable. drop_view was added in P1035, which is why it's not (yet) present.
I think there should be a few follow-up patches: one for adding algos, and possibly one for each of the other ranges papers and issues (just one commit for all the issues).

4. This is me being pedantic: for some reason some of these are left-justified and others aren't (maybe >1 item is centered). Is there some way to fix this (so they're all left-justified)?

They all look left-justified to me. Which ones look centred to you?

[ldionne]

LGTM with comments applied. I mostly double-checked what I was assigned to.

libcxx/docs/OneRangesProposalStatus.csv

56

indirect_unary_predicate, indirect_binary_predicate, indirect_equivalence_relation and indirect_strict_weak_order.

Those were all done in https://reviews.llvm.org/D101277.

The names are hella confusing.

[zoecarver]

Assuming you apply my inline comments, this lgtm as well.

[ldionne]

Ping, are we landing this? If so, this should probably be updated to the latest status.

[cjdb]

In D103295#2833480, @ldionne wrote:

Ping, are we landing this? If so, this should probably be updated to the latest status.

Sorry, I'll definitely land this today. @zoecarver I'll be adding iter_swap to the list of done stuff.