Editorial(?) changes in [conversions] #22
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
I've created separate branches for these changes and will resubmit as separate pull requests (sorry for the churn, I've figured out the right github workflow now!) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The types byte_string and wide_string should be in a fixed-width typeface.
Codecvt is not a template, so Codecvt<Elem, char, std::mbstate_t> is ill-formed, it should be just Codecvt (same problem in [conversions.string] and [conversions.buffer].)
The example in [conversions.string] supposes the existence of some facet called codecvt_utf8, which is in the standard library now so there's no need to word it that way. Just use std::codecvt_utf8.
http://cplusplus.github.com/LWG/lwg-defects.html#991 changed the string types to use allcoators, but didn't update the definitions so they don't match the class synopsis (are those definitions even necessary? They don't add anything that isn't already defined in the class definition in paragraph 2).
There are also lots of redundant std:: qualifications in that clause, which I didn't remove to keep the patch simpler.
If any of these doesn't qualify as editorial changes let me know and I'll request LWG issues and send a new pull request without those parts.