Is it proper to always use std:: on C functions mentioned in examples?

[Myriachan]

[meta.const.eval] has this code example:

constexpr void f(unsigned char *p, int n) {
  if (std::is_constant_evaluated()) {           // should not be a constexpr if statement
    for (int k = 0; k<n; ++k) p[k] = 0;
  } else {
    memset(p, 0, n);                            // not a core constant expression
  }
}

Should this say std::memset instead of memset to be more consistent with the rest of C++? There are a few other cases in which std:: is omitted for C standard functions.

This is being rather pedantic, because anyone reading the Standard would know what is meant by memset here.

[jwakely]

It's not a complete example that's supposed to be able to compile. It is valid if it comes after:

#include <cstring>
using std::memset;

I think it would be ok to add the qualification here anyway.

[frederick-vs-ja]

Given there's already if consteval, I think it would be better to show a brand new example which uses std::is_constant_evaluated in a ternary conditional expression.