Should we stop talking about related types?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
Currently we don't define "related type" as a term, and it has different meanings in different contexts. It may be confusing to use "related type" because some readers may think it should be a term and consistently refer to the same thing (see cplusplus/CWG#461).
Could you add references to the occurrences of "related types" here? Thanks.
@jensmaurer Sure, here are all 6 references/uses of the term that I could find.
- temp.class.general
- support.general
- char.traits.general
- re.req
5 & 6) dcl.init.ref The example given in dcl.init.ref#5.4.4 has 2 uses of the term related type
Originally posted by @ranaanoop in https://github.com/cplusplus/CWG/issues/461#issuecomment-1802179191
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 six linked references where “related type(s)” appears and the discussion in cplusplus/CWG#461. Compare how the term is used in each context, then determine whether the wording should be defined, replaced, or removed; done means the six occurrences have a consistent, agreed treatment.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cpp, tex
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100