I think it is beneficial to keep the consistency of always using exchange when defining a move constructor.

I think it is beneficial to keep the consistency of always using exchange when defining a move constructor.

This is the only place in "ranges.tex" where exchange( is mentioned. Every other place where we define a move-constructor, we use std::move; e.g. https://eel.is/c++draft/range.elements.iterator#5.sentence-1 , https://eel.is/c++draft/range.elements#sentinel-2.sentence-1 , https://eel.is/c++draft/range.take.while.sentinel#2 , https://eel.is/c++draft/range.adjacent.sentinel#2 , ...

I'm not familiar with any other place in the standard that uses exchange when it doesn't need to. git grep 'Initializes.*exchange' has zero hits. git grep '\(^\|with \).tcode.exchange' has only three hits, all in this paragraph.

The new phrasing doesn't read like English to me. Also, other is an rvalue reference, not a value, so it seems iterators could have been obtained from other.

I agree that "iterators (previously) into X" is a little vague. Other places (e.g. https://eel.is/c++draft/associative.reqmts.general#115.sentence-2 ) use "iterators pointing to elements of X", but we can't do that here because generators don't have elements. The phrase "iterators into X" is used in https://eel.is/c++draft/sequence.reqmts#37.sentence-3 , as well as on the left-hand side of this diff.

This note could be updated to say "this operation does not modify any iterator it in the program, regardless of whether it.coroutine_ == other.coroutine_ before the operation," but that's obviously tautological, as opposed to being subtly tautological. I think it would also be reasonable to just kill this note entirely.

Re other here (in the move-constructor) being an rvalue reference: True, I updated this wording only for consistency with the wording in operator=, where other is a value (not a reference). I think if the notes are kept, they should be kept parallel, and not with different wording in different places.