"single search" is confusingly ambiguous
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
I was reading the name lookup rewrite and initially was confused by reading that "a search" was defined to be something different than "a single search", until I found out that "single search" has its own definition, rather than being one quantity of search.
I recommend a different term. For class members, we have "direct member" and "member" (which includes inherited members). Similarly, "direct search" can be defined to only operate on the class's own scope, whereas a "search" will not.
This will also help to reduce ambiguities, when text wants to refer to one quantity of searches (maybe among multiple searches from different program points) as a "single search".
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 reading the name lookup rewrite and the definitions of "search" and "single search" mentioned in the issue, then compare them with the existing "direct member" and "member" terminology. Done means the terminology consistently distinguishes a class's own-scope search from broader searches and avoids ambiguity when referring to one search.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- tex
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100