New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Assorted wording issues with P0433R2 #1524
Comments
Thanks for creating the issue. I'll deal with this after the branch is merged to master. |
How about:
? |
And maybe follow it by:
|
Yes, that is much clearer. The note SGTM too (but probably can also mention input iterator). |
I've merged all of the above changes other than the new note. I don't see the need for a note given that we already normatively say "the extent to which an implementation determines that a type cannot be If the "the extent to which [...]" wording is not sufficiently clear, I'd prefer that we get a handle on what's unclear about it and fix that rather than paraphrasing the rule in a note. |
In f913f21#diff-0fb8725b6f959c00f8cef02d54e8c125R1021 (currently in the motions-2017-03-lwg-19 branch) we have:
It's not clear whether a type that satisfies only one of the two conditions is guaranteed to fail to qualify as an allocator or not. Perhaps the sentence can be editorially reworded to make the intent clearer?
@jwakely also pointed out that the paper pervasively uses wording of the form "if it has an
X
template parameter that is called with a type that meows", which is problematic because a) deduction guides are not "called", and b) "that is called ..." is actually modifying "template parameter", which also can't be "called".Finally, the input iterator and allocator weasel-wording are placed in [sequence.reqmts] but now are used for all containers, not just sequence containers. Perhaps they should be moved to a better place?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: