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
I would like to report a simple Editorial issue. It appears not only
in the official standard but in also in which I believe is latest
draft: N3485.
Paragraph 23.2.1/4 says:
"In Tables 96 and 97 [...] a and b denote values of type X [...]"
whereas it meant
"In Tables 96, 97 and 98 [...] a and b denote values of type X [...]"
Indeed, Table 98 uses a and b and no other paragraph between 23.2.1/4
and Table 98 defines a and b. Alternatively, the paragraph immediately
preceding Table 98, which is 23.2.1/12, could redefine a and b by
replicating the definition given in 23.2.1/4.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
From an email to cxxeditor@:
I would like to report a simple Editorial issue. It appears not only
in the official standard but in also in which I believe is latest
draft: N3485.
Paragraph 23.2.1/4 says:
"In Tables 96 and 97 [...] a and b denote values of type X [...]"
whereas it meant
"In Tables 96, 97 and 98 [...] a and b denote values of type X [...]"
Indeed, Table 98 uses a and b and no other paragraph between 23.2.1/4
and Table 98 defines a and b. Alternatively, the paragraph immediately
preceding Table 98, which is 23.2.1/12, could redefine a and b by
replicating the definition given in 23.2.1/4.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: