[variant.visit] qualify std::forward for consistency #1895
Conversation
|
Good in principle; have you messed around with the linebreaking at all to see if the manual hints can be removed? |
|
Could you please add a Travis check for trailing newlines to prevent future regressions? |
I had not. The
Sure. |
source/utilities.tex
Outdated
| \tcode{forward<Variants>(vars))...);}\iref{func.require}. | ||
| Let \tcode{is...} be \tcode{vars.index()...}. Returns: | ||
| \begin{codeblock} | ||
| @\placeholdernc{INVOKE}@(std::forward<Visitor>(vis), get<is>(std::forward<Variants>(vars))...); // see \ref{func.require} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please remove the semicolon. It has always been a mistake; we return expressions, not statements. Other instances of Returns: plus codeblock also never use a semicolon.
I could further question whether this shouldn't be a Returns: element rather than an Effects: one, but let's leave that as is for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done. I had similar thoughts about this being an odd use of Effects, and also decided it wasn't worth touching for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's fine, leave it with me. I'll discuss it with Richard.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't the semi-colon consistent with the third form at https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/wiki/Specification-Style-Guidelines#writing-effects-in-a-function-description ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jwakely: Only if we actually said return. But we don't. But I think we should change this to use a Returns: element anyway, non?
There's no semicolon in the Returns: example below.
...because Library always qualifies
moveandforward.Also, my editor hates extra newlines at end-of-file.