-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 766
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[lib] Referring to standard library requirements. #1263
Comments
Editorial meeting consensus:
|
[time.clock.req] p4.2 is an example of a long list of table references. Would this case be better served with a section reference to [utility.arg.requirements]? |
A lot of references to CamelCase requirements are missing cross-references. For example, CopyConstructible appears 54 times, only 14 of these appearances have a "ref" nearby. Do we want to have a cross-reference after all mentions of CamelCase requirements? |
@zygoloid opined that we'll reference the subclause (at the end) if we have a large-ish list of CamelCase requirements. Otherwise, we reference the table. |
This is partially mooted by the ongoing concepts work for the standard library. |
See #2176 and the new section "Requirements expressed by concepts" on the wiki. |
...instead of "satisfy". Partially addresses cplusplus#1263.
...instead of "satisfy". Partially addresses cplusplus#1263.
...instead of "satisfy". Partially addresses cplusplus#1263.
...instead of "satisfy". Partially addresses cplusplus#1263.
First, we have a mixture of "shall satisfy" (89) and "shall meet" (61). What's the preferred phrase?
Second, for CopyConstructible etc., we sometimes cross-reference the table number and sometimes the section. What's the preference here?
Third, for CopyConstructible etc., we sometimes say "shall meet/satisfy the CopyConstructible requirements" and sometimes we say "shall meet/satisfy the requirements of CopyConstructible". What's the preferred phrase?
For iterator requirements, we're now fairly consistently saying "shall meet/satisfy the requirements of a blah iterator (xref to section)", which is good.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: