Skip to content

[defns.well.formed] Current definition of "well-formed" might be imprecise #4467

Closed
@frederick-vs-ja

Description

@frederick-vs-ja

Currently the definition of "well-defined" just covers "the one-definition rule". However, there are many other cases that a program is ill-formed, no diagnostic required without violation of the ODR (e.g. instantiating a template when its associate constraints are satisfied but the corresponding standard concepts are not modeled).
Should we improve the wording?

Activity

added
decision-requiredA decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required.
on Jan 15, 2021
jensmaurer

jensmaurer commented on Jan 15, 2021

@jensmaurer
Member

Yes, there seems to be room for improvement.

Maybe just "... and semantic rules where a diagnostic is not required"

jensmaurer

jensmaurer commented on Jan 29, 2021

@jensmaurer
Member

Editorial meeting:
Suggestion: "C++ program constructed according to the syntax and semantic rules"
Have CWG review it.

removed
decision-requiredA decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required.
on Jan 29, 2021
self-assigned this
on Feb 5, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

No labels
No labels

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

Milestone

No milestone

Relationships

None yet

    Participants

    @frederick-vs-ja@jensmaurer

    Issue actions

      [defns.well.formed] Current definition of "well-formed" might be imprecise · Issue #4467 · cplusplus/draft