Title
[fund.ts.v3] LFTSv3 awkward wording in propagate_const requirements
Status
new
Section
[propagate_const.class_type_requirements]
Submitter
Thomas Köppe

Created on 2018-07-02.00:00:00, last changed 2018-07-20.21:06:57.

Messages

Date: 2018-07-20.21:06:57

Proposed resolution:

This wording is relative to N4758.

  1. Edit [propagate_const.class_type_requirements] as indicated:

    -1- If T is class type then it shall satisfy the following requirements. In this sub-clause t denotes a non-const lvalue of type T, ct is a const T& bound to tas_const(t), element_type denotes an object type.

Date: 2018-07-20.00:00:00

[ 2018-07-20 Priority set to 3 after reflector discussion ]

Date: 2018-07-02.00:00:00

Addresses: fund.ts.v3

In the LFTSv3 prospective-working-paper N4758, [propagate_const.class_type_requirements] uses a strange turn of phrase:

"In this sub-clause, t denotes a non-const lvlaue of type T, ct is a const T& bound to t, […]"

The last bit is strange: "ct is a const T& bound to t" is not how we usually say things. The specification-variables usually denote values, and values can't be references. Perhaps we could just say, "ct is as_const(t)"?

History
Date User Action Args
2018-07-20 21:06:57adminsetmessages: + msg10006
2018-07-07 17:39:00adminsetmessages: + msg9981
2018-07-02 00:00:00admincreate