[expr.prim.lambda] Split specification of lambda expressions into sub… #1158
Conversation
|
I have tried to restrain myself to reshuffling text and introducing subsection headings. |
| \tcode{()}. | ||
| The lambda return type is \tcode{auto}, which is replaced by the | ||
| type specified by the | ||
| \grammarterm{trailing-return-type} if provided and/or deduced from |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about just "or" instead of "and/or"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is unchanged text, just moved around. Not my invention.
| @@ -788,7 +792,9 @@ | |||
| q(); // OK: outputs \tcode{1a3.14} | |||
| \end{codeblock} | |||
| \end{example} | |||
| This function call operator or operator template is declared | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(I cannot comment on unchanged code, so this comment is out of place.)
The example seems to be specific to packs only, not to the entire paragraph. What do you think of the following: In lines old-762/new-766, take the sentence "The invented type ..." out and end the paragraph after the next sentence, just before the example, Then put the removed sentence back at the start of the now new paragraph, followed by the example. That way the new paragraph concentrates on one specific detail (packs), together with example.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
First, the example also has non-pack things, e.g. glambda at the top.
Second, "The invented type template-parameter ..." refers to the template-parameter introduced in the preceding sentence. Moving this to a separate paragraph, with something else in between, would lose the connection.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, the example is a good point. I wouldn't find losing the connection too worrying in general; I think it's acceptable for later things to refer to earlier things. That's more of a judgement call. But we can keep it as is.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, but if you read the intermediate sentence, it goes off on a tangent, and returning to the template-parameter later is odd.
|
Taking no action on the review comments, as explained above. @zygoloid: You're next. |
|
I've updated some cross-references to now refer to a more specific subsection, where appropriate. |
|
No-change rebase. |
|
|
re 1: Moved normative sentence from [expr.prim.lambda]p2 to the start of [expr.prim.lambda.closure]p3. Moved example as a new paragraph to after [expr.prim.lambda.closure]p3. re 2: Done. re 3: Done. I'm not super-happy with the "*this object". I added "(if any)", since we might not be in a member function. re 4: Why just the explicit captures? Seems like all of the capture grammar could go there. Done. |
|
Subject: Re: editorial restructuring of [class.copy] [...] |
|
Uploaded to CWG wiki for Kona, as agreed with Mike Miller: |
|
CWG suggested to move the first sentence of closure types p4 to the general section and otherwise approved this change. |
…o the front. Per CWG guidance.
|
Rebased and implemented CWG guidance. |
|
@jensmaurer: Rebase, just to be sure? |
…sections.
Fixes #1155.