[Cfp-interest 3179] Re: use of "can not" in N3301 5.2.2.4p13

[Vincent Lefevre]

On 2024-08-10 09:03:46 -0700, Jim Thomas wrote:
> Hmm. In N3220 the problematic “can not” had been changed to “is not
> permitted to”, which has the intended meaning. But subsequent drafts
> have reverted to “can not”.

N3096 already had "is not permitted to". Which draft had "can not"
before it was changed to "is not permitted to"?

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent at vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)