Skip to content

Conversation

AlisdairM
Copy link
Contributor

An essential property of names is that they have linkage. Move the statement that names have linkage up from [basic.link] to [basic.pre] where the term name is defined, and before the references to linkage of names in the clauses between [basic.pre] and [basic.link].

@AlisdairM AlisdairM changed the title [basic.pre][basic.link] Names have linkage [basic.pre][basic.link] Directly associate linkage with names Jul 27, 2025
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Strategically, some CWG people believe it's a bad approach that names have linkage; instead, entities should have linkage. I haven't seen a comprehensive fix for that, yet, though.

An essential property of names is that they have linkage.
Move the statement that names have linkage up from [basic.link]
to [basic.pre] where the term `name` is defined, and before
the references to linkage of names in the clauses between
[basic.pre] and [basic.link].
@AlisdairM AlisdairM force-pushed the directly_associate_linkage_with_names branch from 71b8b7e to 523cd09 Compare July 27, 2025 21:19
@AlisdairM
Copy link
Contributor Author

Strategically, some CWG people believe it's a bad approach that names have linkage; instead, entities should have linkage. I haven't seen a comprehensive fix for that, yet, though.

Do you object to moving the current text to at least improve clarify of the current specification? It would then be easy to move the parapraph down a couple of lines if and when we apply it to entities instead.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants