Considering an adjective other than immediate

[brevzin]

In talking with Jason Merrill about wording for a paper, we noticed that we have several terms that are some kind of immediate noun:

• immediate subexpression
• immediate subobject
• immediate scope
• immediately-declared constraint
• immediate function
• immediate invocation
• immediate-escalating (expression or function)

In the [expr.const] section, immediate functions, immediate invocations, and immediate-escalating expressions and functions are closely related to each other. "Immediate" here means "now." But that's not really the same meaning of "immediate" as in the other terms.

In the others, I wonder if an adjective like "direct" would simply be better. Your direct subexpressions and subobjects, your direct scope? We actually already talk about direct members and direct base classes, so direct subobjects and direct subexpressions makes sense.

[t3nsor]

I agree that we should say "direct subexpression".

The one use of "immediate subobject" is in https://eel.is/c++draft/class.union.general#5 and I'm not sure why it doesn't just say "direct member", or even just "member" (since a union can't have inherited members).

I don't like "direct scope". How about "proximate scope"?

[hubert-reinterpretcast]

For "immediately-declared constraint", I think that the "immediately" can just be dropped.

[opensdh]

Immediate means, as the etymology suggests, without (the possibility of) an intermediary. If that intermediary would be an interval of time, it means "now" (or at least "no later than"), but obviously it has many non-temporal uses (family, assembly operands, area). It makes sense to seek a reserved English counterpart to consteval (even though colloquially that's what we say), but I wonder if it wouldn't be more helpful to change that usage of "immediate" (because "immediate invocation" seems like it should be the opposite of something like "asynchronous invocation" rather than of "runtime invocation").