-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 769
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[basic.lval] Dynamic type is not a property of objects #3934
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree that the terminology "dynamic type" vs. "static type" is less than ideal, but we need a wholesale fix for that instead of changing a single occurrence (that isn't even the worst).
"static" versus "dynamic" isn't at all relevant here, since we have no accesses of class type. I think I'd prefer to strike the "dynamic" and not add a "static". |
Good point; an "access" in C++ is always on a built-in type. |
@jensmaurer Should we take over this PR? It looks like useful cleanup. |
Yes, I think there is some cleanup necessary in this area.. |
@jensmaurer: Shall we start by just deleting the two instances of "dynamic" here and leaving wider cleanup for a separate effort? |
I think I'd prefer a more wholesale approach with CWG review. |
This is not the only place where such wording exists, but fixing other occurrences would require more substantial rewrites.