[diff.basic] Should we add an example for the case mentioned in CWG2836?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
Even though std::float64_t is invalid in C, we can say "the type of 0.0f64" or just such a literal in both C and C++ (when it's supported).
As mentioned in CWG2836, when long double, double, and std::float64_t/_Float64 have the same format, the following example would be valid in C but invalid in C++.
auto x = 0.0f64;
auto y = 0.0l + 0.0f64;
auto p = true ? &x : &y;
Given C++26 has been rebased onto C23, it seems OK to have such an example in Annex C.
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 locating Annex C in the draft source and read the surrounding examples and conventions for C/C++ differences. Check the CWG2836 context and determine whether the supplied floating-point literal example fits there; done means the example is added or the issue is resolved with the rationale recorded.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- tex
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 45/100