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

[ranges] Add missing \expos markers for nested types #4829

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Oct 24, 2021
Merged

[ranges] Add missing \expos markers for nested types #4829

merged 1 commit into from Oct 24, 2021

Conversation

jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Fixes #4819

CaseyCarter
CaseyCarter approved these changes Aug 19, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@CaseyCarter CaseyCarter left a comment •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

FWIW, LWG removed \expos from these positions during review of P0896 (obviously only for the types that were introduced by P0896) because people felt we didn't need to remind readers for a third time that these types are exposition-only. Consequently the authors removed those annotations from P1035, which introduced all of these types. I don't recall when the project editors brought back the \exposs for the P0896 types, but this change is certainly consistent. (I have no personal preference, but I do enjoy the occasional chuckle at cycles in our process.)

@jensmaurer jensmaurer added the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Aug 19, 2021
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member Author

@CaseyCarter , that's actually a good point. We use \expos only when introducing a name, not when using it. One could argue that the definitions of the nested types are not introducing the name (that was done when defining the class), but just using that name.

A consistent alternative approach would be to remove \expos from the four similar places where it currently exists. I think I like that latter approach.

@tkoeppe tkoeppe removed the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Sep 24, 2021
@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Sep 24, 2021

Editorial decision: go with Casey's approach, remove extraneous annotations from definitions.

@tkoeppe tkoeppe added the changes requested Changes to the wording or approach have been requested and not yet applied. label Oct 22, 2021
@jensmaurer
[ranges] Remove \expos markers fornested types
561f68a 
An \expos marker should appear only on the first
declaration of a name.
@tkoeppe tkoeppe merged commit 3d14247 into cplusplus:main Oct 24, 2021
@jensmaurer jensmaurer deleted the c39 branch October 24, 2021 20:23
@jensmaurer jensmaurer removed the changes requested Changes to the wording or approach have been requested and not yet applied. label Oct 24, 2021
@JohelEGP JohelEGP mentioned this pull request Feb 23, 2023
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@CaseyCarter CaseyCarter CaseyCarter approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[ranges] Inconsistent marking of definitions with // \expos
3 participants
@jensmaurer @tkoeppe @CaseyCarter