I had forgotten about that discussion, sorry.

I did make that change to "possibly const qualified char*" which of course
is not what we want to say. So it was suggested I use the "cv" wording
instead.

I changed it to "pointer to possibly const-qualified char".

Thanks,
Corentin


On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 5:08 PM Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> Am Fr., 28. Apr. 2023 um 16:58 Uhr schrieb Corentin Jabot via SG16
> <sg16_at_[hidden]>:
> >
> > Following the meeting I tweaked the wording
> https://isocpp.org/files/papers/D2741R2.pdf (and removed support for
> char8_t)
> > I found talking about the second or third form unwieldy, so i added a
> "static-assert-message" grammar element which its own requirements.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Corentin.
>
> I notice that the revised paper still refers to "cv char*". I had
> criticized this approach in when reviewing P2741R1, see my reflector
> message
>
> Support for volatile char* in static_assert messages by P2741R1
> ("user-generated static_assert messages")
>
> My understanding was on the feedback that the v-part of the
> cv-qualifier should be removed from the proposal.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Daniel
>