Three editorial fixes re "X means that Y" #5936
Open
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
Makes [optional.general] consistent with [variant.general], which does not italicize "holds a value of alternative type T".
There are two possible fixes here. Either
> \tcode{T} is \defnx{\oldconcept{DefaultInsertable} into \tcode{X}} if...
or
> \defnx{\tcode{T} is \oldconcept{DefaultInsertable} into \tcode{X}} means that...
Quuxplusone
force-pushed
the
means-that
branch
from
a5bd66b
to
3bf2c87
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
[util.smartptr.shared.const] defines the phrase "enables
shared_from_this" without a \defnx entry.[optional.general] used \defnx when defining the phrase "contains a value", but [variant.general] does not \defnx the phrase "holds a value"; let's be consistent, and I think this is the right direction in which to be consistent.
[container.alloc.reqmts] has many instances of "T is foo means that...", which should be either "T is foo if..." or else "[The phrase] T is foo means that...". The proposed resolution of LWG 2158 is related, in that it currently says "Syntactic requirements of T is foo" when what it means is "Syntactic requirements of T is foo" (use-mention distinction).
Happy to split this into separate PRs, but I figure the same grammar-lawyers will be interested in all three.