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.

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

[over.match.funcs, ...?] Consider shunning single-item lists #3176

Closed
Eelis opened this issue Aug 15, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #3224
Closed

[over.match.funcs, ...?] Consider shunning single-item lists #3176

Eelis opened this issue Aug 15, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #3224
Assignees

Comments

@Eelis
Copy link
Contributor

Eelis commented Aug 15, 2019

For example:

These look pretty weird. I think a "let's avoid single-item lists" rule would probably make sense for the Specification Style Guidelines wiki page. :)

@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Aug 15, 2019

I think this is to mirror the presentation in [over.match.copy] which has a very similar "the candidate functions are selected as follows:" sentence followed by a two-bullet list. Using similar formats for those three paragraphs is nice, although I agree that a one-bullet list is ugly now that we number the bullets.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer added the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Sep 3, 2019
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Editorial teleconference: No general prohibition against single-item bulleted lists. Review individual bulleted lists that are objectionable. [over.match.conv] and [over.match.conv] are fine.

[over.match.funcs] p5: fix by removing "an additional rule applies" and remove bullet.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer removed the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Sep 9, 2019
@jensmaurer jensmaurer self-assigned this Sep 13, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants