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
Non grammatical term initializer is used like a language construct but not defined #3197
Comments
See also #2847. |
Editorial teleconference: Defining a term "initializer" is problematic, because the very definition could be confused with the grammarterm. But we do something similar for "expression". This would be helped if grammar would use a different font; see #323. Maybe turn uses of grammarterms into links to their definition (will make them blue). |
We now have a distinct presentation for grammarterms vs. defined terms. |
Editorial meeting: We want /initializer/ plus function arguments plus return/throw operands and other operands (e.g. co_await) and to overloaded operators. -> function arguments after rewriting. Sometime determine the kind of initialization from /initializer/, except that you don't in the other cases. Maybe embody that in the transition from /initializer/ to initializer. |
While the grammatical term initializer has a definition, initializer as used throughout the standard is not defined anywhere, and since it is used as if it is a langauge construct, a definition should be specified, just like it is in the C11 standard. Such a definition should include grammatical initializers, as well as initializer-clauses (for function calls as the arguments are initializers, but not initializers)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: