[expr.new] "is required to provide" could be just "provides"
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
As first noted at https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/pull/6758#discussion_r1443280642 we say:
Note 8: An implementation is required to provide default definitions for the global allocation functions
This was just changed to "is expected to provide". I think we could just say "An implementation provides default definitions". It's not something we expect to be true, it's just something required to be true, so it's a fact that the implementation provides them.
In [locale.category] we have similar normative wording:
An implementation is required to provide those specializations for facet templates identified as members of a
category, and for those shown in Table 105.
We could just say "provides those specializations"
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 quoted wording in [expr.new] and compare it with the similar normative wording in [locale.category], using the linked pull-request discussion for context. Update both instances to state that the implementation provides the definitions or specializations, then verify the generated draft contains the intended wording.
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
- 35/100