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
P1467R9 Extended floating-point types and standard names #5670
Conversation
1b205b3
to
5533527
Compare
ec0f5aa
to
3c57442
Compare
then it is effectively cast to \tcode{complex<T>}. | ||
\item | ||
Otherwise, if the argument has integer type, | ||
then it is effectively cast to \tcode{complex<double>}. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should probably use \keyword
for double
etc., but we can fix that later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think \keyword
is used on the library clauses.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
At least not with any form of consistency. @jensmaurer Do you recall if we have a policy/plan for using \keyword
in the library?
(No immediate action needed here.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do you recall if we have a policy/plan for using \keyword in the library?
We haven't discussed this in any detail, but if the plan for C++ is approximately that of C in that we want all mentions of keywords colored a little bit (or so), then we should use \keyword
everywhere in prose text and configure codeblock
accordingly.
Currently, we really want all keywords in the core section to be annotated, because there will be index entries for them.
Section [complex.special] is supposed to be removed in its entirety. The explicit specializations for |
@tkoeppe, for your convenience, I've pushed the changes discussed by @dkolsen-pgi , except for |
Thank you so much! |
8658a80
to
9aa76a2
Compare
Fixes #5579
Fixes cplusplus/papers#227
Also fixes #1247