Skip to content

[optional.inplace] "argument pack" should be "function parameter pack" #128

Closed
@sdutoit

Description

@sdutoit
Contributor

Alisdair says:

[optional.inplace] 20.6.5 In-place construction
p1
The standard does not define a term 'argument pack', the correct
term is 'function parameter pack'.

Activity

jwakely

jwakely commented on May 15, 2013

@jwakely
Member

Yes, I mentioned this in c++std-lib-34059

I discussed it with Andrzej Krzemienski and I suggested this rewording:

Specifically, optional<T> has a constructor with in_place_t as the
first argument followed by a function parameter pack; this indicates
that T should be constructed in-place (as if by a call to placement
new expression) with the pack expansion forming the constructor
arguments.

He pointed out that "argument pack" is also used (without definition) in [temp.arg]/4

sdutoit

sdutoit commented on Aug 29, 2013

@sdutoit
ContributorAuthor

Closed by 0131a03. I in fact removed the sentence outright as it adds nothing to the existing normative wording for the constructors disambiguated by in_place_t.

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

    Relationships

    None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

        Participants

        @sdutoit@jwakely

        Issue actions

          [optional.inplace] "argument pack" should be "function parameter pack" · Issue #128 · cplusplus/draft