Skip to content
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

[expr.new] "is required to provide" could be just "provides" #6761

Open
jwakely opened this issue Jan 8, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

[expr.new] "is required to provide" could be just "provides" #6761

jwakely opened this issue Jan 8, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Jan 8, 2024

As first noted at #6758 (comment) we say:

Note 8: An implementation is required to provide default definitions for the global allocation functions

This was just changed to "is expected to provide". I think we could just say "An implementation provides default definitions". It's not something we expect to be true, it's just something required to be true, so it's a fact that the implementation provides them.

In [locale.category] we have similar normative wording:

An implementation is required to provide those specializations for facet templates identified as members of a
category, and for those shown in Table 105.

We could just say "provides those specializations"

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Jan 8, 2024

Ah yes, I see now, we don't actually need any normative changes here. Your suggestion sounds good, in both cases, thank you!

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants