[intro.object] The term "potentially-overlapping subobject" doesn't seem to exclude reference members
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
no_unique_address can be applied to non-static reference data members, which is needed for ranges::minmax.
However, the current wording seemingly implies that a non-static data member of a reference type declared with [[no_unique_address]] would also be a "potentially-overlapping subobject" even if it can't be a subobject.
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 reviewing the standard wording around the definition of a “potentially-overlapping subobject” and the rules for [[no_unique_address]] on non-static reference data members. Confirm how the wording applies to the ranges::minmax case, then update the draft wording so reference members are not treated as subobjects when they cannot be subobjects.
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
- 35/100