Skip to content

[complex.numbers.general] Clarify that the template is primary #7271

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 18, 2025

Conversation

frederick-vs-ja
Copy link
Contributor

@frederick-vs-ja frederick-vs-ja commented Sep 29, 2024

The difference between between "the complex template" and "the template named complex" (which including program-defined specializations) is obscure. It seems better to cleary say that [complex.numbers.general] only covers the primary template.

Fixes #7270.

The difference between between "the `complex` template" and "the template named `complex`" (which including program-defined specializations) is obscure. It seems better to cleary say that [complex.numbers.general] only covers the primary template.
@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Jun 17, 2025

@jensmaurer, @jwakely could you please have a look at whether that's editorial and indeed reflects the intended library semantics?

Copy link
Member

@jensmaurer jensmaurer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm ok with this.

@tkoeppe tkoeppe merged commit c156822 into cplusplus:main Jun 18, 2025
2 checks passed
@frederick-vs-ja frederick-vs-ja deleted the primary-complex branch June 18, 2025 22:48
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[complex.numbers.general] Is the effect of instantiating complex<NonFP> unspecified even if the specialization is program-defined?
4 participants