[basic.pre][basic.link] Directly associate linkage with names#8126
[basic.pre][basic.link] Directly associate linkage with names#8126AlisdairM wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
AlisdairM
changed the title
|
Strategically, some CWG people believe it's a bad approach that names have linkage; instead, entities should have linkage. I haven't seen a comprehensive fix for that, yet, though. |
AlisdairM
force-pushed
the
directly_associate_linkage_with_names
branch
from
71b8b7e to
523cd09
Compare
Do you object to moving the current text to at least improve clarify of the current specification? It would then be easy to move the parapraph down a couple of lines if and when we apply it to entities instead. |
An essential property of names is that they have linkage. Move the statement that names have linkage up from [basic.link] to [basic.pre] where the term `name` is defined, and before the references to linkage of names in the clauses between [basic.pre] and [basic.link].
AlisdairM
force-pushed
the
directly_associate_linkage_with_names
branch
from
523cd09 to
8749ca8
Compare
|
Editorial meeting 2026-03-26: Leave the linkage wording alone. It is subject to ongoing CWG considerations. Moreover, the current placement of the wording fits well and establishes the connection of names having linkage, and the proposed move of the normative wording is not an improvement. |
4 participants
An essential property of names is that they have linkage. Move the statement that names have linkage up from [basic.link] to [basic.pre] where the term
nameis defined, and before the references to linkage of names in the clauses between [basic.pre] and [basic.link].