Reword implementation-defined nature of <> and "" for #include
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
The implementation-defined nature of the contents for #include directives vary slightly, depending on whether "" or <> form is used. However, the term 'implementation-defined' is used for only the first form, and the second merely augments it. This makes it tricky to create meaningful cross-references in the index of implementation-defined behaviors.
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
Review the draft wording for #include directives, comparing the <> and "" forms and how the term "implementation-defined" is used. The change is complete when the wording clearly distinguishes the two forms and supports meaningful cross-references in the implementation-defined behaviors index.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cpp
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100