P2167R3 Improved Proposed Wording for LWG 2114 (contextually converti… #5986
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
suggested changes
Nov 17, 2022
jensmaurer
force-pushed
the
motions-2022-11-lwg-10
branch
from
9e23853
to
da94015
Compare
burblebee
requested changes
Nov 19, 2022
|
On Nov 19, 2022, at 6:21 AM, Daniel Krügler ***@***.***> wrote:
@Dani-Hub commented on this pull request.
In source/support.tex <#5986 (comment)>:
> @@ -5045,7 +5045,9 @@
Otherwise, \tcode{strong_order(E, F)} if it is a well-formed expression.
\item
Otherwise, if the expressions \tcode{E == F} and \tcode{E < F}
- are both well-formed and convertible to \tcode{bool},
+ are both well-formed and
+ each of \tcode{decltype(E == F)} and \tcode{decltype(E < F)} models
+ \exposconcept{boolean-testable},
Can we please keep the "each" regardless the position? My interpretation of a previous review of @W-E-Brown <https://github.com/W-E-Brown> was that the "each" makes the interpretation unambiguous. But maybe Walter would like to correct my possibly incorrect interpretation of his actually words used?
Daniel has the right idea: The words "each" and "both" are not interchangeable; they mean different things. The use of "both" in this sentence changes the meaning, leading to an incorrect specification, as was discussed before the wording was approved in committee.
|
|
On Nov 19, 2022, at 7:24 AM, Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña ***@***.***> wrote:
@JohelEGP commented on this pull request.
In source/support.tex <#5986 (comment)>:
> @@ -5045,7 +5045,9 @@
Otherwise, \tcode{strong_order(E, F)} if it is a well-formed expression.
\item
Otherwise, if the expressions \tcode{E == F} and \tcode{E < F}
- are both well-formed and convertible to \tcode{bool},
+ are both well-formed and
+ each of \tcode{decltype(E == F)} and \tcode{decltype(E < F)} models
+ \exposconcept{boolean-testable},
and change "models" to "model" ("each" can be either plural or singular in this case, but plural sounds better and I think is what is most often used elsewhere in the spec).
According to #5986 (comment) <#5986 (comment)>, when "each" is next to "model", there are 10 occurrences for "model" and 0 for "models".
Sorry, but for such purposes "next to" appears to be an irrelevant grammatical criterion: The sole applicable criterion, according to multiple dictionaries and grammar books, is whether the subject of the clause is singular or plural.
In Daniel's "each of ..." wording formulation, above, "each" is a pronoun used as the subject and is clearly singular, so "models" would be correct.
In the formulation "the expressions ... and ... each ...", the use of "each" is adverbial (meaning "individually"), rather than pronominal; this leaves "the expressions" as the plural subject, so "model" would be correct.
(Those above-cited "10 occurrences" should be probably be similarly audited for correctness via analogous analysis.)
|
The 10 occurrences are of the form " |
|
Here's the actual output: |
|
When using "Each of", "each" is singular (so "models" is correct). See https://www.masterclass.com/articles/is-each-singular-or-plural and similar sites.
They are correct as is. |
jwakely
approved these changes
Dec 9, 2022
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might be nice if we consistently say either "A and B each model C" or "each of A and B models C", but the changes as applied are not incorrect. And as I noted in a comment, changing to "A and B model C" would definitely be incorrect, so maybe best not to fiddle with it!
jwakely
requested changes
Dec 9, 2022
tkoeppe
force-pushed
the
motions-2022-11-lwg-10
branch
from
da94015
to
9f23463
Compare
…ble to bool) Editorial notes: * Minor consistency fixes around the use of "each". * Some requested wording changes have already been applied as part of LWG 2114. Fixes NB US 073 (C++23 CD).
tkoeppe
force-pushed
the
motions-2022-11-lwg-10
branch
from
6c4288b
to
04ad290
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.
…ble to bool)
Fixes NB US 073 (C++23 CD).
Fixes #5971
Fixes cplusplus/papers#877
Fixes cplusplus/nbballot#504