[basic.compound] Weird and conflicting uses of `defnx`
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
There is no logic to these uses of defnx in https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.compound.
This intro fluff paragraph is really just a note that summarizes the various forms of forming compound types; it doesn't define anything and so all the uses of defnx should probably be removed here.
What's even more problematic is that it breaks the spec by having multiple definitions of the same term, such as
- https://eel.is/c++draft/class.union.general#def:union defining "union"
- https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.compound#def:union defining
union(which seems defective in itself because how is a prose paragraph "defining" a keyword? The grammar does that.)
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 in source/basic.tex at lines 5950-5957 and inspect how the defnx uses render in basic.compound. Compare the paragraph with the separate union definition in class.union.general. Done means the introductory paragraph no longer creates conflicting term definitions while still summarizing compound types accurately.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- tex
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 2/5
- Estimated time
- 1-3 hours
- Activity status
- Active
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 74/100