The name is bound to a declaration vs is bound to a Scope
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
For a single search([basic.lookup.general] p3), we require the name is bound in a scope. Rather, in [basic.scope.scope] p4, we say the name is bound to a declaration. It means, as a normal case, a name introduced by a declaration is bound to it and is also bound to its target scope. However, the meaning couldn't be phrased in the common rule [basic.scope.scope] p2
Unless otherwise specified:
- [...]
- Any names (re)introduced by a declaration are bound to it in its target scope.
In my mind, the rule only says the name is bound to the declaration but didn't phrase that the name is also bound to the target scope. Could we decompose the rule into two common bullets?
Unless otherwise specified:
- [...]
- Any names (re)introduced by a declaration are bound to it
- Any names first introduced by a declaration are bound to its target scope
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 [basic.scope.scope] paragraphs 2 and 4 alongside [basic.lookup.general] paragraph 3. Compare how binding to a declaration and binding to a target scope are used throughout the surrounding standard wording. Done means the terminology and rule structure clearly resolve the distinction without creating inconsistencies elsewhere.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cpp, tex
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100