LWG3031 Fix missing code-formatting of const #6936
Merged
+3
−3
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
jwakely
approved these changes
Apr 19, 2024
jensmaurer
approved these changes
Apr 19, 2024
jensmaurer
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 19, 2024
|
@jensmaurer I probably should have noticed this sooner, but while the wording change is approved by LWG, I believe the editorial decision in #117 supersedes that. I guess that's why it hasn't been edited into the draft with |
|
Urks. Revert time, I guess. |
jensmaurer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 19, 2024
|
I removed this commit. Yes, we don't mark up "possibly const", it seems. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3031 proposed approved wording that includes:
However, all of these occurrences were formatted as plain "(possibly const)".
On top of being an editorial mistake, it's also somewhat misleading, as this shifts the intuition of the reader towards "const objects", and away from "
constonT". It's clear from the surrounding wording that thisconstrefers to types, but it's still easier to understand the wording with intended formatting in my opinion.