This is similar to issue: https://github.com/cplusplus/CWG/issues/192
which was resolved editorially. "Basic type" should probably be changed to
"fundamental type" just like in the issue mentioned.

On Fri, 4 Oct 2024, 14:28 Anders Schau Knatten via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden] wrote:

> (This is not a proposal, but might be a core issue)
>
> [over.oper#general-note-3] says
>
> [Note 3 : The identities among certain predefined operators applied to
> basic types (for example, ++a ≡ a+=1) need not hold for operator functions.
> Some predefined operators, such as +=, require an operand to be an lvalue
> when applied to basic types; this is not required by operator functions. —
> end note]
>
>
> The term "basic type" is never defined in the standard, and not used
> anywhere else either. Should we change this to something else, like
> "arithmetic types"? Or is "basic type" just used informally here, assuming
> the reader understands this to be more of a vague concept?
>
> It seems like it has been this way since at least C++11, so it might not
> be a big problem.
>
> Cheers,
> Anders
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>