[structure.summary] Remove obsolete paragraph about Note(s): and Example(s): elements that we no longer provide #1825
Conversation
|
Note(s) removed in 23d7399. An "Example(s)" element never seems to have existed, at least there was never a |
|
What about the "Note:" in table 91 (unordered associative containers), row for |
|
@jensmaurer: That should just be converted to a normal [Note:. |
tkoeppe
force-pushed
the
delement
branch
2 times, most recently
from
46bbf45
to
196a6ca
Compare
source/containers.tex
Outdated
| \begin{note} | ||
| \tcode{[b.cbegin(n), b.cend(n))} is a valid range containing | ||
| all of the elements in the $\texttt{n}^{\textrm{ th}}$ bucket. | ||
| \end{note}% |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Where (if anywhere) is the normative rule justifying this claim? Should we copy the corresponding wording from b.begin(n) and b.end(n) to b.cbegin(n) and b.cend(n), or is there general wording saying how begin and cbegin relate somewhere?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For ordinary iterators and begin/end, you could squint at Table 83 to conclude this relation. But we never have local iterators anywhere. We don't have equivalent "operational semantics" fields in this table.
It might be safest to repeat the wording from the non-const versions and delete the note. What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That approach sounds good to me.
…ple(s): elements that we no longer provide Also restyle a manual Note: in [unord.req] to use the standard note environment.
No description provided.