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
Consider moving "in addition ... included" content into synopses, deleting prose text #3683
Comments
Note to self: If the "In addition to..." form is undesirable and we decide to replace all occurrences, the P/R of lwg 3378 should be changed accordingly. |
I favor repeating the declaration in the synopsis instead of prose text "In addition to ... available". |
I propose introducing exposition-only headers to avoid duplication that easily becomes outdated, as we've seen recently in various issues. Example of definition and use: 23 Iterators library [iterators]23.7 Range access [iterator.range]In addition to being available via inclusion of the 22.3.2 Header
|
|
There's also meta.trans.other p2 for |
@jwakely: Not sure why you're assigned here, but is LWG OK with this direction? |
Editorial meeting: Mechanically replace prose text with duplication of declaration in synopses. |
No, only the declaration.
No and no. |
There are a few suggestions here, I assume the exposition only header is not the suggested direction. I can see the advantage in repeating declarations, but it does raise the question of when a declaration in a header synopsis means the feature is available (i.e., in practice, when it's defined) or only declared. As noted above, |
"But how do we know when a declaration in a synopsis implies a definition too?" Good point. How do we know that, in general? The header synopsis is often, but not always, near the definition and the specification thereof, but that's certainly a stretch. So, we have the case that showing the declaration of This concern mostly applies to class (template) declarations/definitions and similar. For function declarations, there seems to be little doubt that showing a declaration implies having a definition available, but that could of course be provided out-of-line, as usual for function definitions. It seems to me the "declaration-only" cases of |
See #3670: in LWG review it emerged that the pattern of "In addition to ... available when the header
<foo>
is included" is fairly widely used (as opposed to repeating declarations in synopses). We may like to consider a review of the situation. The other places that use "in addition..." wording are:tuple.helper p6, p8
iterator.range p1
range.access p1
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: