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

An index of library concepts would be extremely useful #2959

Closed
AlisdairM opened this issue Jul 8, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #3159
Closed

An index of library concepts would be extremely useful #2959

AlisdairM opened this issue Jul 8, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #3159
Assignees
@jensmaurer

Comments

@AlisdairM
Copy link
Contributor

The standard library specification is filling up with concepts, especially "exposition only" concepts, and Cpp17Requirements. It is often necessary to locate the definition of these concepts to understand the clause you are reading, and there is no easy collected reference to find them. We could look into the index of library names, but it is not clear that the exposition-only names belong there.

It would be helpful to add a new index for all library concepts, including the exposition-only ones denoted by appearing in italics. It might also be useful to index the Cpp17Requirements, but most of those are reasonably easy to find today, and with a consistent prefix naming convention, perhaps better served by consistently adding them to the main index (where some, but not all, already reside).
@jensmaurer jensmaurer added the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Jul 8, 2019
@AlisdairM
Copy link
Contributor Author

Note that any Cpp17Requirements concerns would be separately addressed by the patch I just submitted:
#2961

It would not surprise me that we could do better (comments on patch please!) but the existing indexing infrastructure can largely deal with this case.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

jensmaurer commented Jul 16, 2019 •
edited

Editorial meeting: Nice idea. The index should contain exposition-only and published new-style (but not Cpp17) concepts. Only index definitions, not uses (too much work).

@jensmaurer jensmaurer removed the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Jul 16, 2019
@jensmaurer jensmaurer self-assigned this Aug 8, 2019
@jensmaurer jensmaurer mentioned this issue Aug 8, 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.

[index] Add index of concept names. jensmaurer/draft
2 participants
@AlisdairM @jensmaurer