[optional.monadic] Should we remove invented variable declarations?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
[optional.monadic]/8 currently states:
Mandates:
Uis a non-array object type other thanin_place_tornullopt_t. The declaration
U u(invoke(std::forward<F>(f), value()));
is well-formed for some invented variableu.
In this declartion, invoke(std::forward<F>(f), value()) is a prvalue of cv U since U is remove_cv_t<invoke_result_t<F>>, so the declaration would be well-formed as long as U is well-formed.
Should we just say U is well-formed instead, or don't explicitly say any additional requirement given it is implicitly required that U is well-formed?
expected::transform and expected::transform_error have the same issue.
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 wording in [optional.monadic]/8 and compare the corresponding requirements in expected::transform and expected::transform_error. Determine whether the invented-variable declarations add a necessary constraint, then confirm the preferred consistent wording for all three clauses; done means the issue's wording question is resolved and the draft text is updated accordingly.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cpp
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100