[expr.static.cast], [basic.type.qualifier] "More cv-qualified" vs "greater cv-qualification"
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
There is a partial ordering of cv-qualifiers, and the defined term we have is more cv-qualified.
However, a number of places use a different term in reference; namely "greater cv-qualification" (e.g. https://eel.is/c++draft/expr.static.cast#14). We should be consistent about how we talk about the ordering of cv-qualifiers.
Some numbers:
- There are 6 occurrences of "more cv-qualified".
- There are 5 occurrences of "greater cv-qualification".
We could also primarily define everything in terms of cv-qualifier ordering, and say that:
A type cv1
T1is more cv-qualified than type cv2T2if cv1 is greater than cv2.
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 defined term in [basic.type.qualifier] and the reference in [expr.static.cast]. Search the draft for all occurrences of "more cv-qualified" and "greater cv-qualification", then resolve which terminology the draft should use consistently. Done means the affected references follow the chosen terminology.
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
- 42/100