Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 12:08:49 +0300
On Mon, 27 Sept 2021 at 11:56, Andrzej Krzemienski via Liaison
<liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Regarding the note, I know that this is considered a bug in the standardese, if we say the same thing in two places. And I am lacking the expertise to determine if ODR-usage already follows from other rules. In other places, we do not say everywhere that the expression that we see is ODR-used. If someone from CWG would be kind enough to shed some light on this, I would be grateful.
Jens (Maurer) already did. The contract condition is potentially
evaluated because it's not mentioned in the list of things
that are not, so the note is fine. Since it's potentially evaluated,
it leads into ODR-use. No need to do anything.
<liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Regarding the note, I know that this is considered a bug in the standardese, if we say the same thing in two places. And I am lacking the expertise to determine if ODR-usage already follows from other rules. In other places, we do not say everywhere that the expression that we see is ODR-used. If someone from CWG would be kind enough to shed some light on this, I would be grateful.
Jens (Maurer) already did. The contract condition is potentially
evaluated because it's not mentioned in the list of things
that are not, so the note is fine. Since it's potentially evaluated,
it leads into ODR-use. No need to do anything.
Received on 2021-09-27 04:09:02