[expr.static.cast] "Cast" vs. "converted" vs. "explicitly converted"
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
P3-Other
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
We seem to have three ways of referring to possible things static_cast can do:
- "can be cast to type" ([expr.static.cast] p2)
- "can be explicitly converted to a type" ([expr.static.cast] p4)
- "can be converted to a prvalue of type" ([expr.static.cast] p12)
I think these are all meant to refer to the same thing, so perhaps we should unify the wording.
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
Compare the wording in [expr.static.cast] paragraphs 2, 4, and 12, using the linked eel.is passages as the starting point. Determine whether the three terms describe the same operation, then align the terminology across those paragraphs once the preferred wording is established.
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
- 45/100