[18-28] Fix index entry for constructors #740
Conversation
|
Two particular features I will call attention to:
|
|
@AlisdairM If it's after the closing brace, then it's not part of the index. The |
The preferred way to list constructors in the index is under the non-code font term 'constructor', but many classes retain old text that lists the constructor under the class name as the same class name, in a code font. Worse, there are quite a few classes that have fallen into a hybrid approach, with both listings, which can be confusing. This change-set should catch every constructor indexed in the old style and consistently transform it to the new. One additional fix is that allocator_traits mis-indexed the static member functions 'construct' and 'destroy' as the plain-text constructor and destructor. This patch correctly indexes them as their correct name, in a code-font.
AlisdairM
force-pushed
the
fix_constructors_in_library_index
branch
from
87fcdb9
to
05521fa
Compare
|
Rebases and conflicts resolved - apparently you can't make edits to adjacent lines in different branches without confusing the diff algorithm. Manually reviewed diff to confirm rebase did not do anything unexpected - ready for review again. |
|
I also fixed |
The preferred way to list constructors in the index is under the
non-code font term 'constructor', but many classes retain old
text that lists the constructor under the class name as the same
class name, in a code font. Worse, there are quite a few classes
that have fallen into a hybrid approach, with both listings, which
can be confusing. This change-set should catch every constructor
indexed in the old style and consistently transform it to the new.
One additional fix is that allocator_traits mis-indexed the static
member functions 'construct' and 'destroy' as the plain-text
constructor and destructor. This patch correctly indexes them as
their correct name, in a code-font.