Freestanding note in [basic.start.main.1] has no normative backing
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
[Note:
In a freestanding environment, start-up and termination is implementation-defined; start-up contains the
execution of constructors for objects of namespace scope with static storage duration; termination contains
the execution of destructors for objects with static storage duration. — end note]
There are very few mentions of freestanding in the WD, and this is one of them. [basic.start.main.1] does make the requirement of a main function implementation defined in a freestanding implementation, but start-up and termination do not appear to be specified in relation to the execution of main.
My editorial suggestion is to remove this aspirationaly normative note. Motivated parties can submit papers to get normative text added that accomplishes the goals of the note.
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 at [basic.start.main.1] in the working draft and review the freestanding-environment note against the surrounding wording. Remove the aspirationally normative note, then verify that the section still clearly states the intended requirement for main in a freestanding implementation.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- tex
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 1/5
- Estimated time
- Under an hour
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Clearly specified
- Newbie friendliness
- 45/100