Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

fs.op.canonical still defined in terms of absolute(p, base) #1620

Closed
cubbimew opened this issue Apr 20, 2017 · 5 comments
Closed

fs.op.canonical still defined in terms of absolute(p, base) #1620

cubbimew opened this issue Apr 20, 2017 · 5 comments
Labels
lwg Issue must be reviewed by LWG.

Comments

@cubbimew
Copy link
Contributor

cubbimew commented Apr 20, 2017 •
edited

fs.op.canonical says it is equivalent to "absolute(p, base).", but absolute no longer takes a base argument as of p0492r2

More likely to be editorial, absolute still has a base argument in the synopsis of [fs.filesystem.syn], though it doesn't have it in [fs.op.absolute]
@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Apr 20, 2017

This seems non-editorial.

@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Apr 20, 2017

The synopsis part is though, p0492 said "Change [fs.op.absolute] and update the synopsis in [fs.filesystem.syn] accordingly:" but I failed to do that.

@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Apr 20, 2017

The synopsis is fixed by ae6271c

@cubbimew
Copy link
Contributor Author

all right, I'll send the non-editorial bit to lwg.

@cubbimew
Copy link
Contributor Author

This is now LWG 2956

@jensmaurer jensmaurer added the lwg Issue must be reviewed by LWG. label Apr 24, 2017
@jwakely jwakely mentioned this issue May 17, 2017
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
lwg Issue must be reviewed by LWG.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@jwakely @cubbimew @jensmaurer