You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
For declarations in sub-namespaces, particularly within std::ranges, our itemdecls are often very unclear about which declaration they're referring to. For example, the only clue that the advance described in [iterator.operations] is in a different namespace from the advance described in [range.iterator.operations.advance] is the subclause name and how it's cross-referenced from the synopsis. That's not good enough.
We should consistently use a ranges:: prefix on the declarator-id for entities in namespace std::ranges (and likewise for other sub-namespaces of std).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
zygoloid
added
the
after-motions
Pull request is to be applied after the pending edits from WG21 straw polls have been applied.
label
Nov 26, 2018
jensmaurer
added
big
An issue causing a large set of changes, scattered across most of the text.
and removed
after-motions
Pull request is to be applied after the pending edits from WG21 straw polls have been applied.
labels
Nov 26, 2018
For declarations in sub-namespaces, particularly within
std::ranges
, our itemdecls are often very unclear about which declaration they're referring to. For example, the only clue that theadvance
described in [iterator.operations] is in a different namespace from theadvance
described in [range.iterator.operations.advance] is the subclause name and how it's cross-referenced from the synopsis. That's not good enough.We should consistently use a
ranges::
prefix on the declarator-id for entities in namespacestd::ranges
(and likewise for other sub-namespaces ofstd
).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: