Non grammatical term initializer is used like a language construct but not defined
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
While the grammatical term initializer has a definition, initializer as used throughout the standard is not defined anywhere, and since it is used as if it is a langauge construct, a definition should be specified, just like it is in the C11 standard. Such a definition should include grammatical initializers, as well as initializer-clauses (for function calls as the arguments are initializers, but not initializers)
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
Compare the C11 definition of initializer with the C++ standard's existing definitions and uses of initializer and initializer-clause. Define the non-grammatical term so it covers grammatical initializers and initializer-clauses, including function-call arguments; done means the terminology is defined consistently throughout the standard.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cpp
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100