[temp.spec.partial.general], [temp.expl.spec] "Partial specialization" and "explicit specialization" should be defined
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
I have noticed that we don't ever define these terms:
I imagine it would be better normatively if these terms were formal. Furthermore, I find it annoying that I can't Ctrl+F in the index and find explicit specialization or specialization, explicit that way.
Is there some reason why we don't do \defnadj{partial}{specialization} or something?
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 source/templates.tex at the two referenced locations around lines 3290 and 6524, and inspect nearby terminology definitions and index entries. Determine how the draft formalizes these terms and whether both “partial specialization” and “explicit specialization” should be defined and indexed; done means the terms are normatively defined and searchable in the generated index.
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
- 45/100