[basic.pre] unintended re-definition of declaration
#6753
Comments
|
I think the italic style is making the paragraph a complete definition. IMO the Standardese is somehow different from the plain English. |
|
Ok, so whenever after 6.1.5 I see "declaration", it refers to this list in 6.1.5, and when I see "declaration", it refers to the grammar element? Usually grammar elements ("syntactic objects") are distinguished from other terms ("semantics objects") in that they use dashes/hyphens if they consist of multiple words, while the other terms use spaces - but "declaration" is only one word, so that is confusing. Also, the following suggests that there is a term "declaration of E" (for an entity E), but such a term is not defined anywhere.
The same sentence suggests ("the name (if any)") that a "declaration of E" has associated an optional name. But the, 6.6.2 says
Which could be interpreted in two ways: either there are two terms, a "declaration" and a "declaration of E", and that would be ok. Or there is only one term, and then two cited sentences together imply that a declaration introduces exactly one name, in a weird way. |
It seems to me that 6.1.5 is formulated in a way that suggest that the sentence is actually a definition of
declaration- and it is not:According my interpretation of this Grammarly blog post, the ", which is a [...]" part is a nonrestrictive clause. That means that the sentence should make sense even without it, and the clause should only add some additional information. So the sentence is equivalent to saying
But then (1) we would have two definitions of what a declaration is, and (2) we would not restrict which kinds of declarations can introduce names. This would be in contrast with what I am guessing is the intended meaning of the sentence - that is, to define the "can-introduce-a-name" property of
declaration. In my opinion, the sentence should go like this:(that is, we should use a restrictive clause).
Disclaimer: I am not a native English speaker.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: