microsoft / microsoft/ifc-spec
Define arity as a distinct type, not bitfield
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 94
- Forks
- 11
- Avg merge
- 1d 29m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 2
Description
The IFC spec has the notion of arity (to describe the number of parameter of abstractions such as macros, functions, templates, etc.) and describe them as bitfields. That creates an interpretation problem when considering endianness of the IFC.
Suggestion: define Arity and variadicity as distinct types, not bitfields.
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
Read the IFC specification sections that define arity, variadicity, bitfields, and endianness. Determine how the specification should represent Arity and variadicity as distinct types; the work is done when the relevant definitions and their endianness interpretation are unambiguous.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- tex
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100