[lib] Rename exposition-only 'no-throw-' concepts #4942
Conversation
for consistency with nothrow_constructible.
| template<class R> | ||
| concept @\exposconcept{no-throw-forward-range}@ = @\seebelow@; // \expos | ||
| concept @\exposconcept{nothrow-forward-range}@ = @\seebelow@; // \expos |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems strange that you didn't have to readjust the comment to be aligned at a multiple of 4.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The checking machinery ignores lines with an @ in them, because they disconnect the source file indentation from the rendered indentation anyway.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Aren't the % macro length: comments in macros.tex for that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Those came afterwards and are not reflected in the checking machinery.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If turns out that the alignment is actually locally consistent (but maybe not a factor-of-4), because all exposition-only concepts in the vicinity are of the nothrow-x kind. I'll not touch this for now until we actually get proper checking of @ widths.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's fine. Ultimately, the goal of the guidance is set us on an overall path of steady improvement, but there are still many parts of the text that don't follow it (or worse, contain italics), and it's not the end of the world. Thanks for spotting this, but also don't sweat it too much.
to 'nothrow-', for consistency with nothrow_constructible
Fixes #4101