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

GB-6: [category.ctype] Formatting of exposition-only members #185

Closed
sdutoit opened this issue Sep 19, 2013 · 5 comments
Closed

GB-6: [category.ctype] Formatting of exposition-only members #185

sdutoit opened this issue Sep 19, 2013 · 5 comments
Labels
ballot-comment Response to an NB or ISO comment on a ballot lwg Issue must be reviewed by LWG. tiny An issue with a small change; with "cwg" label: can be applied editorially after CWG consent.

Comments

@sdutoit
Copy link
Contributor

sdutoit commented Sep 19, 2013

N3733 GB-6 says:

17.5.2.3 [objects.within.classes] defines the use of "exposition only" in the library:
The declarations for such member objects and the definitions of related member types are followed by a comment that ends with exposition only,
22.4.1 [category.ctype] has members which are preceded (not followed) by a comment ending "exposition only".
and 28.12.1 [re.regiter] and 28.12.2 [re.tokiter]

It goes on to propose:

Reformat to follow 17.25.2.3
@sdutoit
Copy link
Contributor Author

sdutoit commented Sep 23, 2013

This one is not so clearly an issue; the members themselves aren't exposition only, only their values.

Of course, it isn't actually clear what it means for the values to be "exposition only". This might need an LWG issue.

@sdutoit
Copy link
Contributor Author

sdutoit commented Sep 24, 2013

Expectation from LWG (Alisdair, specifically) is that the meaning is the obvious intended one: the ones that are unique must be unique, the others must be as defined.

@sdutoit
Copy link
Contributor Author

sdutoit commented Sep 25, 2013

I asked Alisdair to record a response to this NB comment stating that the members themselves are in fact not exposition only, so the wording from [objects.within.classes] does not apply.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

22.4.1 has been fixed with an explicit comment. I can't find exposition-only values in [re.regiter] or [re.tokiter].

@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Nov 24, 2016

The problems in [re.regiter] and [re.tokiter] were fixed by f4fb66c

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
ballot-comment Response to an NB or ISO comment on a ballot lwg Issue must be reviewed by LWG. tiny An issue with a small change; with "cwg" label: can be applied editorially after CWG consent.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

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