[basic.fundamental] Weird terminology about "X character types"
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
Given the definitions of terms ordinary character types, narrow character types, and character types (added by P2314R4) in [basic.fundamental], ordinary/narrow character types aren't "character types that are ordinary/narrow", because signed char and unsigned char are ordinary/narrow character types, but not "character types".
On the other hand, the term encoded character types defined in [fs.req] has the exactly same meaning as "character types". Is there any reason to use two terms to describe the same set of types?
It seems that the term "encoded character types" should be defined in [basic.fundamental]/11, used in [basic.fundamental]/11 and [lex.charset]/5, and [fs.req] just needs to refer to the definition.
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 with the definitions in [basic.fundamental] and compare the use of “character types” with “encoded character types” in [fs.req] and [lex.charset]. Check the cited P2314R4 terminology, then update the affected definitions and references so the same set of types uses consistent wording throughout.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cpp, tex
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Clearly specified
- Newbie friendliness
- 50/100