You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The cross reference to temp.over.link in pre-Prague subclause 9.3.3.5 [dcl.fct] paragraph 18 is at odds with intended reading of "equivalent" as not being the temp.over.link definition of "equivalent" as demonstrated by the example that mentions that the cases are functionally equivalent but not equivalent.
Unfortunately, the associated wording paper has a numeric cross-reference that is clearly wrong. The correct cross reference would probably be to [temp.fct].
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The cross reference to temp.over.link in pre-Prague subclause 9.3.3.5 [dcl.fct] paragraph 18 is at odds with intended reading of "equivalent" as not being the temp.over.link definition of "equivalent" as demonstrated by the example that mentions that the cases are functionally equivalent but not equivalent.
Unfortunately, the associated wording paper has a numeric cross-reference that is clearly wrong. The correct cross reference would probably be to [temp.fct].
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: