[class] Rephrase definition of M(X) used to define a standard-layout … #1076
Conversation
| $M(\mathtt{X})$ is empty. | ||
|
|
||
| \item If \tcode{X} is a non-union class type with the first non-static data | ||
| member having type \tcode{X0} (where said member may be an anonymous union), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"with the first non-static data member having type" -> "whose first non-static data member has type"
... would seem a bit more natural to me.
|
Various fixes applied, including the one above plus indexing confusion resolved. |
| $M(\mathtt{X})$ is empty. | ||
|
|
||
| \item If \tcode{X} is a non-union class type whose first non-static data | ||
| member has type $\mathtt{X}_0$ (where said member may be an anonymous union), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Everywhere else where you've been making changes you used a style like \tcode{X}$_0$ -- any reason to prefer one over the other? (Personally, I prefer this, one, though I would perhaps make a macro \mcode for this use.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm using the style otherwise used locally. I'd like to go forward with this change and then:
I agree we're inconsistent here, and the other changes should probably have used \mathtt (or rather, \mcode). It seems we agree that a "T"-style placeholder for a type should be \tcode (not \placeholder) and indexing should be in math mode, with
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't even think this is a question of consistency. Both ways work and either is fine. I just wanted to point out that you've done this differently elsewhere, but I think going any further is busywork with limited value.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(Leaving the actual review to @zygoloid.)
…class.
Fixes #496.