Reword "corresponding function templates"
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
1. It should presumably be "two _declarations of_ function templates", since it is declarations that correspond (and the bullet immediately above says that they declare something).
- Is the idea that we should explicitly refer to satisfaction of the constraints? We already have in [temp.over.link]/6.4 that a template-head can be "satisfied".
Originally posted by @opensdh in https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/pull/5984#discussion_r1028373547
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
Search the draft for the phrase “corresponding function templates” and read the surrounding bullet and [temp.over.link]/6.4. Reword the passage to address whether declarations correspond and whether satisfaction of constraints should be stated, then verify the surrounding standards text remains consistent.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- tex
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 2/5
- Estimated time
- 1-3 hours
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 45/100