[string.view] Remove unnecessary std:: prefixes. #1288
Conversation
| The library provides implicit conversions from \tcode{const charT*} and \tcode{std::basic_string<charT, ...>} to \tcode{std::basic_string_view<charT, ...>} so that user code can accept just \tcode{std::basic_string_view<charT>} as a non-templated parameter wherever a sequence of characters is expected. | ||
| User-defined types should define their own implicit conversions to \tcode{std::basic_string_view} in order to interoperate with these functions. | ||
| The library provides implicit conversions from \tcode{const charT*} and \tcode{basic_string<charT, ...>} to \tcode{basic_string_view<charT, ...>} so that user code can accept just \tcode{basic_string_view<charT>} as a non-templated parameter wherever a sequence of characters is expected. | ||
| User-defined types should define their own implicit conversions to \tcode{basic_string_view} in order to interoperate with these functions. | ||
| \end{note} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm... This is a note explaining how to interoperate with string views in user code. Assuming no "using namespace std" is present, user code would need the std:: prefix when mentioning basic_string_view.
On the other hand, talking about basic_string_view<charT> as a "non-templated parameter" certainly means this is not verbatim user code (because charT is used as a template parameter in this section).
Net result: I'm fine with the proposed change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had similar misgivings about this change. Since it's in a note, and it is talking about user code (implicitly using charT as a user-chosen parameter), I'd be happy with the status quo.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@tkoeppe: That applies to the last 2 of the 4 removals, right? If so, would the patch be more acceptable to you if it only removed the first 2 occurrences?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Eelis: Changing the std:: convention mid-sentence seems like the worst of all options.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jensmaurer It's not "changing the convention" if the convention is "no prefix unless the occurrence in question is describing user code" and if only the last two occurrences in the sentence describe user code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Eelis: Agreed, but it looks really odd to have the same standard library name prefixed by std:: and not prefixed in the same sentence. (That would be the result with your "2 of 4" proposal.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let me close this PR in the interest of not diluting attention too much for what are basically subjective issues. Feel free to reopen if you feel really strongly, but in that case I'd leave this for the project editor to process.
Same rationale as #1085.