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

No qualified std::fclose call #499

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Dec 15, 2015
Merged

No qualified std::fclose call #499

merged 1 commit into from Dec 15, 2015

Conversation

lichray
Copy link
Contributor

@lichray lichray commented May 7, 2015

No description provided.

@lichray lichray changed the title No qualified std::close call No qualified std::fclose call May 7, 2015
@zygoloid
Copy link
Member

zygoloid commented May 8, 2015

Removing the std:: is fine per library's policy for qualifying function names. What's the justification for removing the footnote?

@lichray
Copy link
Contributor Author

lichray commented May 8, 2015

In preparing the final wording for http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2473 , LWG agree with that there is no need to qualify fflush, and there is no need for the footnote, because people reading this section should know what this function is. So we should do the same thing to the wording where the surperseded wording of 2473 came from.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Dec 15, 2015

@zygoloid: Ping?

zygoloid added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 15, 2015
@zygoloid
Merge pull request #499 from lichray/patch-3
0f943c1 
[filebuf.members] Remove redundant `std::` qualification on `fclose`, remove redundant footnote.
@zygoloid zygoloid merged commit 0f943c1 into cplusplus:master Dec 15, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
3 participants
@lichray @zygoloid @tkoeppe