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@gmail.com> wrote:
Am Fr., 28. Apr. 2023 um 16:58 Uhr schrieb Corentin Jabot via SG16
<sg16@lists.isocpp.org>:
>
> 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