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
Remove bad \grammarterm for "injected-class-name" #1555
Conversation
Why so many commits -- squash and rebase? |
d71b89d
to
b8f66fe
Compare
Figured separate commits might be easier to review, but OK, squashed. |
source/statements.tex
Outdated
@@ -672,8 +672,8 @@ | |||
class type \tcode{C}, the \grammarterm{unqualified-id}{s} | |||
\tcode{begin} and \tcode{end} are looked up in the scope of \tcode{C} | |||
as if by class member access lookup~(\ref{basic.lookup.classref}), and if either | |||
(or both) finds at least one declaration, \grammarterm{begin-expr} and | |||
\grammarterm{end-expr} are \tcode{__range.begin()} and \tcode{__range.end()}, | |||
(or both) finds at least one declaration, \textit{begin-expr} and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We don't really want to introduce new \textit
s. Consult with @jensmaurer for details.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Every other occurrence of meow-expr in this section uses \textit
, which is why I used them here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I understand that. We still need to talk about this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It seems to me begin-expr (and its friend end-expr) should be \placeholder, actually: It's a meta-variable (for a chunk of code, in this case).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So \placeholder
it throughout? That was admittedly my first thought, before seeing all-\textit
s in the surroundings.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See #1558.
b8f66fe
to
e6c76c7
Compare
source/declarators.tex
Outdated
@@ -2110,7 +2110,7 @@ | |||
attribute-specifier-seq\opt decl-specifier-seq\opt declarator virt-specifier-seq\opt{} \terminal{ = default ;} | |||
\end{ncbnf} | |||
|
|||
is called an \grammarterm{explicitly-defaulted} definition. | |||
is called an \term{explicitly-defaulted} definition. | |||
A function that is explicitly defaulted shall |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should be \defn{explicitly-defaulted definition}
, probably with "definition!explicitly-defaulted" as the main index entry and a "see" pointer for "explicitly-defaulted definition".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There's already a \indextext{definition!function!explicitly-defaulted}
~10 lines above, which is why I went with \term
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In my opinion, \term
should only (if at all) survive for stuff that is local enough not to ever be referenced from elsewhere, and thus not needing an index entry at all. For this particular case, it seems the \indextext
from before should simply be folded into the \defnx
to be used after "is called an".
I'm slightly concerned that we seem to define "explicitly-defaulted definition" as the technical term, although we mean "explicitly-defaulted function definition". That probably needs a bit of research what we actually want here.
This needs a rebase. |
e6c76c7
to
4cd7454
Compare
I dropped the explicitly-defaulted change; the indexing issue is above my pay grade. The only remaining change is injected-class-name. |
4cd7454
to
d08bf93
Compare
@zygoloid: What do you think? It looks like the PR in its present form improves consistency. |
Yes, it removes a bad \grammarterm. |
No description provided.