Skip to content

Conversation

@AlisdairM
Copy link
Contributor

This PR should show no difference in the rendered document, but will make it much easier to refactor the Core clauses in the future --- just as we can refactor Library clauses today.

@AlisdairM AlisdairM force-pushed the prep_core_for_reorg branch from fd62420 to e265719 Compare July 30, 2024 16:49
@AlisdairM
Copy link
Contributor Author

Oops. Fixed comment, rebased onto main, and force-pushed for a clean history.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

This looks reasonable, although I notice we sometimes refer to [intro] and sometimes to [lex] when we refer to a range of clauses.

@AlisdairM
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yes --- that was a pre-existing condition that I did not want to touch editorially, as including a greater range in normative text would be impactful, notably bringing the library definitions in Clause 3 under the Core wording.

This PR should show no difference in the rendered document, but
will make it much easier to refactor the Core clauses in the
future --- just as we can refactor Library clauses today.
@tkoeppe tkoeppe merged commit 12e809a into cplusplus:main Nov 20, 2024
2 checks passed
@AlisdairM AlisdairM deleted the prep_core_for_reorg branch November 20, 2024 00:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants