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

[allocator.adaptor.members] Imprecise wording for scoped_allocator_adaptor::select_on_container_copy_construction #518

Closed
jwakely opened this issue Jul 11, 2015 · 1 comment · Fixed by #5121
Assignees

Comments

@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Jul 11, 2015

[allocator.adaptor.members]/17 says:

from the result of calling allocator_traits<A>::select_on_container_copy_construction() on
the corresponding allocator in *this.

That function takes an argument, so displaying it with an empty set of parentheses is misleading.

Saying calling it "on the corresponding allocator" doesn't clearly say that the corresponding allocator is passed as the argument to the function.

I suggest something like:

from the result of calling allocator_traits<A>::select_on_container_copy_construction with
the corresponding allocator in *this as the function argument.

@jwakely
Copy link
Member Author

jwakely commented Jul 11, 2015

Also it talks about initializing each allocator A (suggesting A is a placeholder for an object) then uses A as a template type argument in allocator_traits<A>. Either it's a type (and so we need to initialize an object of that type) or it's an object (in which case we want allocator_traits<decltype(A)>).

@jensmaurer jensmaurer changed the title Imprecise wording for scoped_allocator_adaptor::select_on_container_copy_construction [allocator.adaptor.members] Imprecise wording for scoped_allocator_adaptor::select_on_container_copy_construction Dec 16, 2016
@jensmaurer jensmaurer self-assigned this Nov 22, 2021
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