[intro.execution] It doesn't seem correct to say "sequenced after the invocation"
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
[intro.execution]/15 current reads:
If a signal handler is executed as a result of a call to the
std::raisefunction, then the execution of the handler is sequenced after the invocation of thestd::raisefunction and before its return.
(The specification was introduced by N3910 which resolved CWG1441.)
It seems that we shouldn't say "sequenced after the invocation", since this usually means "sequenced after exiting the function", and when std::raise normally returns, "sequenced after the invocation" will mean "sequenced after its return".
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 [intro.execution]/15 and review the cited wording history in N3910 and CWG1441. Check how the draft uses “invocation” and “return” around std::raise, then determine precise replacement wording whose timing is unambiguous. Done means the paragraph accurately describes signal-handler execution and matches surrounding standard 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
- 45/100