[dcl.enum] Enumerators don't have "initializers" #5869
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
JohelEGP
reviewed
Sep 27, 2022
|
@jensmaurer I'd like some core(ish) pair of eyes if possible. |
jensmaurer
requested changes
Jan 15, 2023
jensmaurer
approved these changes
Jan 15, 2023
|
@jensmaurer this is both "approved" and labeled [cwg]; does that mean it's awaiting CWG review, or could be merged, or what? No new urgency; I just noticed it's been sitting around a while. |
|
@tkoeppe, I don't think we need CWG approval for this; it seems fairly straightforward in a low-density part of the specification. Can this go ahead? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I might just be missing something obvious here, but the current wording of dcl.enum/2 seems to use the grammar production initializer when it means constant-expression. The grammar production initializer is defined as
I could have just replaced "an initializer" with "a constant-expression". But, looking at the preceding sentence, I think "with
=" and "without=" are the perfect way to describe what we're talking about here. So this change is bigger (but still, IMHO, editorial).