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

[intseq] consolidate <utility> docs #682

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Apr 13, 2016

Conversation

AlisdairM
Copy link
Contributor

This change consolidates some of the sprawl occurring in clause 20,
by moving the integer sequence utilities, which are part of the
header, adjacent to the rest of the documentation, between
the main doc and pair, while retaining the pair doc as a
separate subsection adjacent to .

Considered making the integer sequences a subsection nested in 2.2,
but decided that it must have been pulled out into its own separate
sub-clause for a reason.

This change consolidates some of the sprawl occurring in clause 20,
by moving the integer sequence utilities, which are part of the <utility>
header, adjacent to the rest of the <utility> documentation, between
the main <utility> doc and pair, while retaining the pair doc as a
separate subsection adjacent to <tuple>.

Considered making the integer sequences a subsection nested in 2.2,
but decided that it must have been pulled out into its own separate
sub-clause for a reason.
@zygoloid zygoloid merged commit ba934a1 into cplusplus:master Apr 13, 2016
@AlisdairM AlisdairM deleted the consolidate_utility branch April 16, 2016 20:11
FrankHB pushed a commit to FrankHB/draft that referenced this pull request Jul 9, 2016
This change consolidates some of the sprawl occurring in clause 20,
by moving the integer sequence utilities, which are part of the <utility>
header, adjacent to the rest of the <utility> documentation, between
the main <utility> doc and pair, while retaining the pair doc as a
separate subsection adjacent to <tuple>.

Considered making the integer sequences a subsection nested in 2.2,
but decided that it must have been pulled out into its own separate
sub-clause for a reason.
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

2 participants