[structure.specifications] Should we add an element for semantic requirements of concepts?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
There are many semantic requirements of form "... type(s) model(s) some concept only if..." in specifications of standard concepts. However, as mentioned in #4054, there are also semantic requirements not of such form, and there are cases where semantic requirements are separated into different bullets (e.g. [iterator.concept.random.access]).
Should we add the "semantic requirements" element and specify semantic requirements consistently by it?
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
Read the discussion in issue #4054 and compare the semantic-requirements examples, including [iterator.concept.random.access]. Determine whether a consistent “semantic requirements” element is wanted and how the separated requirements should be represented. Done means the proposal has a decided scope and the relevant specification structure is updated consistently.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- tex
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100