[Cfp-interest 2628] Re: [SC22WG14.22998] n3082 wording on page 4

[Jim Thomas]

> On Jan 22, 2023, at 4:44 PM, Damian McGuckin <damianm at esi.com.au> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Jim.
> 
> I share your same concerns about both 'must' and 'is constrained to''  The first is scary and the second too long.
> 
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2023, Jim Thomas wrote:
> 
>>      But if it was just meant to indicate that this applies to any such
>>      constant expression whenever it happens to be evaluated (in an
>>      initializer) at translation time, the "must be" should just be
>>      replaced by "is".

This is missing part of the thread. The remark is from Jen’s message, not mine. I didn’t respond to this part because it’s not what was meant.

> 
> That sounds like a great solution. Simpler. 2 letters.

Simpler, but not what was intended.

> 
> Correct my if I am wrong. The context is 5.2.4.2.2 #21. From the CD document, this is
> 
> 	If an optional unary + or - operator followed by a signaling NaN macro is
> 	used as the initializer for initializing an object of the same type that
> 	has static or thread storage duration, the object is initialized with a
> 	signaling NaN value.
> 
> Will this now read as ...
> 
> 	If an optional unary + or - operator followed by a signaling NaN
> 	macro is used as the initializer (that is evaluated at translation
> 	time) for initializing an object of the same type that has static
> 	or thread storage duration, the object is initialized with a
> 	signaling NaN value.
> 
> Or am I missing something.

See above.

- Jim Thomas
> 
> `Regards - Damian
> 
> Pacific Engineering Systems International, 277-279 Broadway, Glebe NSW 2037
> Ph:+61-2-8571-0847 .. Fx:+61-2-9692-9623 | unsolicited email not wanted here
> Views & opinions here are mine and not those of any past or present employer