Ah, nice find! I'll make a PR.

Cheers,
Anders

On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 11:13 AM Anoop Rana <ranaanoop986_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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
>>
>