"potentially evaluated expression" vs "potentially-evaluated subexpression"

Open
#8,937 1 comment 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty
2/5
Estimated time
1-3 hours
Newbie friendliness
48/100
Issue type
Documentation
Clarity
Mostly clear
Activity status
Quiet
Tech stack
cpp, tex
Domain
documentation

Research direction

Compare the terminology in [intro.execution] and [expr.const.defns]/2 with the change from #8658. Decide whether “potentially-evaluated subexpression” should also be unhyphenated for consistency, then update the draft wording if that decision is accepted.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

P2-Bug

#8658 changed the former to not hyphenate "potentially evaluated". [intro.execution] defines the term "potentially-evaluated subexpression", so that term is still hyphenated. And then [expr.const.defns]/2 juxtaposes the two terms for maximum contrast.

Should the latter be unhyphenated for consistency?

Dominant language
TeX
Stars
221
Forks
813
Avg merge
16h 4m
Merged PRs (30d)
36

Contributor guide

No contributing guide indexed for this repository

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

More from cplusplus/draft

All issues in cplusplus/draft

Similar issues

More Documentation issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.