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.

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

Wording change suggestion in function override rules #170

Closed
tomalakgeretkal opened this issue Sep 10, 2013 · 1 comment
Closed

Wording change suggestion in function override rules #170

tomalakgeretkal opened this issue Sep 10, 2013 · 1 comment
Assignees

Comments

@tomalakgeretkal
Copy link

I think 10.3/11 (C++11; no change in N3690) is currently slightly rubbish:

A virtual function declared in a class shall be defined, or declared pure (10.4) in that class, or both; but no diagnostic is required (3.2).

Though the following can be deduced, I think the passage would be clearer and easier to read if it went something like this:

A virtual function declared in a class shall be defined, or declared pure (10.4) in that class, or both; however, no diagnostic is required if neither is true (3.2).

I also fixed the start-of-phrase/post-semicolon conjunction though, admittedly, that is something of a subjective style issue.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

We often say "; no diagnostic is required". The semicolon is there to separate that part from the three parts of the "or", because it applies to the totality of the "or"s. However, we don't often say "but" before "no diagnostic required".

jensmaurer added a commit to jensmaurer/draft that referenced this issue Dec 7, 2016
tkoeppe pushed a commit that referenced this issue Dec 7, 2016
@jensmaurer jensmaurer self-assigned this Dec 7, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants