[library] needs a structural overhaul
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
The "method of description" subclause has too many deeply nested children.
Suggestions:
- Fold [conventions] away.
- Move [customization.point.object] one level up (it's not a type) and shorten the stable label.
Beyond that, I'd also favor folding away [requirements]. It mixes requirements on user programs (the now prevalent understanding of (concept) "requirement"; e.g. [utility.requirements]) with general requirements on implementations (e.g. [contents]), which are usually not called out as "requirements" in the C++ standard.
See also #2528.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by locating the "method of description" subclause and the [conventions], [customization.point.object], [requirements], [utility.requirements], and [contents] labels in the draft source. Review the related discussion in #2528, then determine how the hierarchy and stable labels should change. Done means the proposed nesting and terminology are consistently updated throughout the draft.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- tex
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100