[derivation] Do we need to clarify "all types specified in the C++ standard library"? LWG4252
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
Does [derivation]/4 (added via LWG2514) cover only standard library classes (and possibly some internal exposition-only classes whose synopses are specified), or ever more classes (observable by the user code) provided by the implementation?
E.g. are some implementation-defined or unspecified iterator types, or return types or std::bind etc. allowed to be final?
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 [derivation]/4 in the C++ draft and the wording added via LWG2514. Examine whether the provision covers only standard library classes, exposition-only classes, or also implementation-defined and unspecified types such as iterators, return types, and std::bind types. Done means the scope is resolved and the draft wording is clarified if needed.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cpp
- Domain
- compilers, documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100