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

"Syntactic" circularity between [expr.add]/4 and [expr.sub]/1? #2670

Closed
languagelawyer opened this issue Feb 17, 2019 · 3 comments · Fixed by #2920
Closed

"Syntactic" circularity between [expr.add]/4 and [expr.sub]/1? #2670

languagelawyer opened this issue Feb 17, 2019 · 3 comments · Fixed by #2920
Assignees
@jensmaurer

Comments

@languagelawyer
Copy link
Contributor

[expr.sub]/1 defines subscripting through pointer arithmetic

The expression E1[E2] is identical (by definition) to *((E1)+(E2))

[expr.add]/4, defining pointer arithmetic, uses syntax looking like subscripting

… if P points to element x[i] of an array object x with n elements,81 the expressions P + J and J + P (where J has the value j) point to the (possibly-hypothetical) element x[i+j]…

Not that x[i] necessarily means subscripting expression, but I think it is still better to replace such constructs with plain English wording like

i-th element of an array object x

instead of

element x[i] of an array object x
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

jensmaurer commented Mar 10, 2019 •
edited

Except that we index arrays zero-based, but English does not allow us to talk about the 0-th element. We could say $x_i$, though.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer added the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Mar 10, 2019
@W-E-Brown
Copy link
Contributor

W-E-Brown commented Mar 10, 2019 via email

@jensmaurer jensmaurer removed the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Jun 5, 2019
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Editorial meeting: We're still unhappy with "i-th", at least without further context. Say "array element i of array object x" instead, taking "array element" as a term of art.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer self-assigned this Jun 6, 2019
@jensmaurer jensmaurer mentioned this issue Jun 6, 2019
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@jensmaurer jensmaurer

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

[expr.add] Avoid x[i] syntax when defining pointer arithmetic. jensmaurer/draft
3 participants
@W-E-Brown @jensmaurer @languagelawyer