Skip to content
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

merge/reword "two kinds of implementations" wording from [library] into [intro.compliance] #7738

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

@tkoeppe tkoeppe commented Mar 15, 2025

From #7703.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Mar 15, 2025

@Eisenwave, @jwakely, @burblebee: I made this suggestion to remove the redundancy into a separate PR.

Comment on lines +836 to 844
A \defnadj{freestanding}{implementation}
is one in which execution may take place
without the benefit of an operating system.
A \defnadj{hosted}{implementation}
supports all the facilities described in this document,
while a freestanding implementation
supports the entire \Cpp{} language
described in \ref{lex} through \ref{\lastcorechapter} and
the subset of the library facilities described in \ref{compliance}.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looking at it again, I think it would read nicer if we had one sentence entirely focused on hosted implementations (that also defines that term, followed by another sentence focused entirely on freestanding implementations.

I don't like how the definition of hosted implementations also has some explanation of freestanding in it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants