This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of New status.

3136. [fund.ts.v3] LFTSv3 awkward wording in propagate_const requirements

Section: [fund.ts.v3::propagate_const.class_type_requirements] Status: New Submitter: Thomas Köppe Opened: 2018-07-02 Last modified: 2020-09-06

Priority: 3

View all issues with New status.


Addresses: fund.ts.v3

In the LFTSv3 prospective-working-paper N4758, [propagate_const.class_type_requirements] uses a strange turn of phrase:

"In this sub-clause, t denotes a non-const lvlaue of type T, ct is a const T& bound to t, […]"

The last bit is strange: "ct is a const T& bound to t" is not how we usually say things. The specification-variables usually denote values, and values can't be references. Perhaps we could just say, "ct is as_const(t)"?

[2018-07-20 Priority set to 3 after reflector discussion]

Proposed resolution:

This wording is relative to N4758.

  1. Edit [fund.ts.v3::propagate_const.class_type_requirements] as indicated:

    -1- If T is class type then it shall satisfy the following requirements. In this sub-clause t denotes a non-const lvalue of type T, ct is a const T& bound to tas_const(t), element_type denotes an object type.