[indirect.general, polymorphic.general] Should we define "indirect/polymorphic object"?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
Currently, "indirect object" and "polymorphic object" are not formally introduced by italic style texts. Should we define them as "object whose type is an indirect/polymorphic specialization"?
On the other hand, as a "polymorphic object" mentioned [polymorphic.general] isn't an object of a polymorphic class type, and isn't even required to manage polymorphic class objects. Should we use another phrase or "polymorphic object" to avoid ambiguity?
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 by reading the [indirect.general] and [polymorphic.general] clauses, including how their existing italic-style terms are introduced. Determine whether the proposed definitions are accurate or whether different wording avoids the stated ambiguity; done means the terminology and cross-references have an agreed resolution.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cpp, tex
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100