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

literal isn't \grammarterm'd #322

Closed
burblebee opened this issue Jun 16, 2014 · 2 comments
Closed

literal isn't \grammarterm'd #322

burblebee opened this issue Jun 16, 2014 · 2 comments
Assignees
@tkoeppe @jensmaurer

Comments

@burblebee
Copy link
Contributor

This issue was originally raised in the core reflector as "[c++std-core-25257] The definition of Literal is missing" on 12 May 2014 03:18, Saeed Amrollahi Boyouki. An e-mail thread ensued, and it was decided that some of this could be resolved by fixing references to literal, when used as a grammar term, editorially, and to open a core issue for what remains. Since there are 537 uses of literal in the spec, this is going to take a while... See branch "literal-fixes" for this ongoing effort.
@burblebee burblebee self-assigned this Jun 16, 2014
@burblebee burblebee added the big label Jun 18, 2014
@burblebee burblebee removed their assignment Nov 6, 2014
@burblebee
Copy link
Contributor Author

Richard had the idea that we resolve this problem by defining "literal" to refer to the grammar term literal, when it applies.

@burblebee burblebee mentioned this issue Apr 15, 2016
Closed
@tkoeppe tkoeppe self-assigned this Nov 11, 2016
@jensmaurer jensmaurer self-assigned this Dec 20, 2016
@jensmaurer jensmaurer removed the big An issue causing a large set of changes, scattered across most of the text. label Dec 20, 2016
jensmaurer added a commit to jensmaurer/draft that referenced this issue Dec 20, 2016
@jensmaurer
[lex.literal] Avoid references to plain 'literal'
228786b 
unless the \grammarterm is intended.

Fixes cplusplus#322.
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

jensmaurer commented Dec 20, 2016 •
edited

I've had a look. It seems most mentions of "literal" in [lex] actually refer to a specific (and defined) kind of literal, e.g. "character literal" or "integer literal". There are a few cases where "literal" is used instead of the full phrase as a means of abbreviation. I'm preparing a patch that expands these.

[expr.prim.literal] does use \grammarterm {literal}, which is good.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer mentioned this issue Dec 20, 2016
Merged
zygoloid pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 5, 2017
@jensmaurer @zygoloid
[lex.literal] Avoid references to plain 'literal' (#1277)
55a4982 
unless the \grammarterm is intended.

Fixes #322.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@tkoeppe tkoeppe

@jensmaurer jensmaurer

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@tkoeppe @burblebee @jensmaurer