[range.split.view,range.chunk.by.view] public exposition-only member functions?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
There's no reason to make an exposition-only member public; it doesn't really make sense to provide users with access to an unspecified name. LWG has avoided public exposition-only members in the past, but some have managed to sneak into the subject subclauses (split_view's member find-next, and chunk_view's find-next and find-prev). It's not clear to me if this was a deliberate choice by LWG, or simply an oversight that should be corrected in the working draft.
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 [range.split.view] and [range.chunk.by.view] subclauses, focusing on the exposition-only find-next and find-prev member functions. Check the surrounding wording and LWG's prior treatment of public exposition-only members; done means the intended visibility and corresponding working-draft wording are agreed and updated.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cpp
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 28/100