Skip to content

[lib] Referring to standard library requirements. #1263

New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Open
jensmaurer opened this issue Dec 16, 2016 · 6 comments
Open

[lib] Referring to standard library requirements. #1263

jensmaurer opened this issue Dec 16, 2016 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

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.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer added the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Dec 29, 2016
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member Author

jensmaurer commented Mar 2, 2017

Editorial meeting consensus:

  • First: make an arbitrary decision; go with "shall satisfy" (cf. concepts)
  • Second: cross-reference the table number
  • Third: first choice; leave non-camelcase (iterators) alone for now.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer removed the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Mar 2, 2017
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member Author

[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]?

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member Author

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?

@jensmaurer jensmaurer added the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Feb 20, 2018
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member Author

@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.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer removed the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Mar 18, 2018
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member Author

This is partially mooted by the ongoing concepts work for the standard library.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member Author

See #2176 and the new section "Requirements expressed by concepts" on the wiki.

CaseyCarter added a commit to CaseyCarter/draft that referenced this issue Jan 7, 2019
...instead of "satisfy".

Partially addresses cplusplus#1263.
CaseyCarter added a commit to CaseyCarter/draft that referenced this issue Mar 17, 2019
CaseyCarter added a commit to CaseyCarter/draft that referenced this issue Mar 17, 2019
CaseyCarter added a commit to CaseyCarter/draft that referenced this issue Jun 15, 2019
zygoloid pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jun 17, 2019
zygoloid pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jun 17, 2019
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant