Why is unqualified async an editorial change?-------- Original message --------From: Agustín Bergé notifications@github.com Date: 11/21/2015 5:00 PM (GMT-08:00) To: cplusplus/draft draft@noreply.github.com Subject: [draft] [futures.async] Replace "std::async" with "async" in code
font (#570)

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
  #570

Commit Summary

[futures.async] Replace "std::async" with "async" in code font

File Changes

M
source/threads.tex
(2)

Patch Links:

https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/pull/570.patch
https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/pull/570.diff

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

Why is unqualified async an editorial change?

Because of 17.6.1.1 [contents]/3, but even without that simply because it is a note.

Thanks. Notes aren't normative, but we want to keep them confusion-free.-------- Original message --------From: Agustín Bergé notifications@github.com Date: 11/21/2015 6:00 PM (GMT-08:00) To: cplusplus/draft draft@noreply.github.com Cc: sigfpe sig.fpe@axiomatics.org Subject: Re: [draft] [futures.async] Replace "std::async" with "async" in code
font (#570)

Why is unqualified async an editorial change?

Because of 17.6.1.1 [contents]/3, but even without that simply because it is a note.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

Using code font is correct. Normally I would say that the qualification is redundant because of 17.6.1.1, but in this case it does help avoid confusion between the function template std::async and the enumerator std::launch::async ... but in fact the destructor won't block if the launch::deferred policy is chosen, so arguably the note could be changed to refer to launch::async not the function template!

But as written, where it refers to the function template, I think disambiguating with the qualification is useful.