Skip to content

[indirect.general, polymorphic.general] Should we define "indirect/polymorphic object"? #7885

@frederick-vs-ja

Description

@frederick-vs-ja
Contributor

Currently, "indirect object" and "polymorphic object" are not formally introduced by italic style texts. Should we define them as "object whose type is an indirect/polymorphic specialization"?

On the other hand, as a "polymorphic object" mentioned [polymorphic.general] isn't an object of a polymorphic class type, and isn't even required to manage polymorphic class objects. Should we use another phrase or "polymorphic object" to avoid ambiguity?

Activity

jwakely

jwakely commented on May 21, 2025

@jwakely
Member

We do introduce optional object but not as formally as "an object whose type is a specialization of optional". Elsewhere we don't even bother with that, e.g. "A variant object holds and manages the lifetime of a value."

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

        Participants

        @jwakely@frederick-vs-ja

        Issue actions

          [indirect.general, polymorphic.general] Should we define "indirect/polymorphic object"? · Issue #7885 · cplusplus/draft