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

Cheers,
Anders

On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 11:13 AM Anoop Rana <ranaanoop986@gmail.com> 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@lists.isocpp.org 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@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals