Skip to content
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

[reverse.iter.conv] Remove unclear explicit comments #6056

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 23, 2023

Conversation

hewillk
Copy link
Contributor

@hewillk hewillk commented Jan 22, 2023

I don't know what explicit refers to here, it seems to be more appropriate to remove. People who disagree with me are also welcome.

I don't know what explicit refers to here, it seems to be more appropriate to remove.
People who disagree with me are also welcome.
Copy link
Contributor

@CaseyCarter CaseyCarter left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This comment has been present since C++98, which had a similar comment on basic_string_view::c_str. I guess these comments are trying to tell us that the pertinent member functions are like explicit conversions? If we don't know what they mean today, they provide no value; I'm happy to remove them.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

@jwakely, any insight here? Otherwise, this looks like good riddance to me.

Copy link
Member

@jwakely jwakely left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think Casey's right, it's saying you have to call a function to convert to the wrapped type, there's no implicit conversion. Let's drop it.

@jwakely jwakely merged commit b9d35e8 into cplusplus:main Jan 23, 2023
@hewillk hewillk deleted the main-explicit branch January 23, 2023 10:31
@CaseyCarter
Copy link
Contributor

I think Casey's right, it's saying you have to call a function to convert to the wrapped type, there's no implicit conversion. Let's drop it.

Alternatively, we could change them to // inscrutable ;)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants