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

'voidify' is not indexed #3392

Open
jwakely opened this issue Nov 9, 2019 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #3876
Open

'voidify' is not indexed #3392

jwakely opened this issue Nov 9, 2019 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #3876

Comments

@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Nov 9, 2019

It's defined and used in [specialized.algorithms] but not in any index.

The similar exposition-only function decay-copy is in the Index of Library Names, although I'm not sure if that's a good idea (most things in that index are reserved by the implementation, so cannot be used as macros by users, but that isn't true of voidify.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

So, what's our indexing policy for such exposition-only names?

@jensmaurer jensmaurer added the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Nov 20, 2019
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Editorial meeting: Have a separate section in the library names index for exposition-only names.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer removed the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Feb 10, 2020
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

It's not obvious how to obtain a separate, named section in the library names index.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

jensmaurer commented Dec 4, 2020

Editorial meeting: Have exposition-only concepts in the concept index (status quo). Have other exposition-only names (e.g. voidify) in the general library names index. Add intro text to say that italics names are exposition-only.

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.

2 participants