-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 772
[LWG 2] P2789R0 Ready and Tentatively Ready issues #6124
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
Conversation
2b6b20e
to
3c99eb3
Compare
\begin{itemdescr} | ||
\pnum | ||
\effects | ||
Equivalent to: \tcode{ranges::iter_swap(*x.\exposid{parent_}->\exposid{current_}, *y.\exposid{parent_}->\exposid{current_});} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Equivalent to: \tcode{ranges::iter_swap(*x.\exposid{parent_}->\exposid{current_}, *y.\exposid{parent_}->\exposid{current_});} | |
Equivalent to \tcode{ranges::iter_swap(*x.\exposid{parent_}->\exposid{current_}, *y.\exposid{parent_}->\exposid{current_})}. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually no; when we introduce code with "Equivalent to:" (note the trailing ":"), the code is supposed to be complete, as if in a codeblock that could be substituted. Your suggestion would apply if the code had been introduced using "Equivalent to", the idea being that later reads as a statement. That said, if this should be an expression and not a statement, then the ";" should be removed. Alternatively, we could use your suggestion and introduce it with "Equivalent to". What do you prefer?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, yes. Again, I forgot to remove the colon, too. Edited.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm fine leaving it as proposed. We could make the change, but we don't have to, and that way we retain some symmetry between the two instances.
f7595dc
to
211ee2d
Compare
… std-format-spec
…context::next_arg_id
…r-like The new overload is also marked as "freestanding", which was not part of the proposed issue resolution but matches the surrounding interface. Also inserts an Oxford comma in [pair.pair].
… functions should be noexcept
211ee2d
to
a47bdd7
Compare
Fixes #6092.
Fixes cplusplus/papers#1478
Fixes cplusplus/nbballot#534
Also fixes cplusplus/papers#1311