Skip to content

Commit 60cb093

Browse files
committed
New issue from Jonathan: Refer back to container requirements when extending them
1 parent 57ddc9a commit 60cb093

File tree

1 file changed

+34
-0
lines changed

1 file changed

+34
-0
lines changed

xml/issue4176.xml

Lines changed: 34 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
1+
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8' standalone='no'?>
2+
<!DOCTYPE issue SYSTEM "lwg-issue.dtd">
3+
4+
<issue num="4174" status="New">
5+
<title>Refer back to container requirements when extending them</title>
6+
<section><sref ref="[containers]"/></section>
7+
<submitter>Jonathan Wakely</submitter>
8+
<date>22 Nov 2024</date>
9+
<priority>99</priority>
10+
11+
<discussion>
12+
<p>
13+
We sometimes give detailed specifications of container members which add
14+
additional specification to the common requirements in
15+
<sref ref="[container.requirements.general]"/>, for example
16+
<sref ref="[vector.modifiers]"/> defines `vector::erase` without actually
17+
saying it erases any elements. The actual effects of `erase` are given in
18+
<sref ref="[sequence.reqmts]"/>.
19+
</p>
20+
<p>
21+
Authors of library wording often struggle with this non-local form of
22+
specification, where we sometimes do spell out container member functions
23+
in full, and sometimes rely on distant wording that applies to all containers.
24+
It would be easier if `vector::erase` referred back to
25+
<sref ref="[sequence.reqmts]"/>.
26+
</p>
27+
</discussion>
28+
29+
<resolution>
30+
<p>
31+
</p>
32+
</resolution>
33+
34+
</issue>

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)