[expected.object.cons, expected.un.cons] Should we simplify `is_constructible_v<unexpected<E>, expected<U, G>&>` and its friends?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
According to [expected.un.cons], if I understand correctly, is_constructible_v<unexpected<E>, expected<U, G>&> is true if and only if is_constructible_v<E, expected<U, G>&> is true (same for expected<U, G>, const expected<U, G>&, and const expected<U, G>).
So, it might be clearer to say is_constructible_v<E, meow> instead of is_constructible_v<unexpected<E>, meow> in the constraints.
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 [expected.un.cons] wording and compare the constraints for unexpected, expected<U, G>&, and the related expected forms. Check whether each condition is equivalent to the corresponding is_constructible_v<E, ...> condition; done when the draft wording clearly expresses the intended equivalence.
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