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

[clause 27] Index all member functions in clause 27 #820

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Jul 12, 2016

Conversation

AlisdairM
Copy link
Contributor

Some work remains to properly index all of the free (namespace scope) functions.

Will review other clauses later, especially those clauses with lots of additions for C++17.

Some work remains to properly index all of the free
(namespace scope) funtions.
\indexlibrary{\idxcode{ios_base}!\idxcode{fmtflags}}%
\indexlibrary{\idxcode{fmtflags}!\idxcode{ios_base}}%
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this entry correct? It looks like the function is called flags, nofmtflags?!

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed - thanks, thought I had caught all of these (there were not many).

@@ -13249,6 +13479,7 @@
These functions enable use of \tcode{recursive_directory_iterator}
with range-based for statements.

\indexlibrary{\idxcode{begin}!\idxcode{recursive_directory_iterator}}%
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why is there only one version of this index entry? Is this not a member function?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I believe this is for the free-function overloads.

@@ -6029,7 +6114,7 @@
defines a class that is responsible for doing exception safe prefix and suffix
operations.

\indexlibrary{\idxcode{sentry}!constructor}%
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why are you deleting this here, but you left both "sentry" and "basic_ostream::sentry" for the destructor?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As far as I can tell, I am consistent for constructor and destructor - the difference is between basic_istream::sentry and basic_ostream::sentry. In one case, I retain the old index entry and add the new one, in the other, I just rename the old to the new.

I agree they should be consistent, but not sure which way we think is the best to resolve. I mildly lean towards retaining both 'sentry!constructor' and 'basic_Xstream::sentry!constructor' (and similarly for destructors), but I lean the other way for 'operator bool' - with is terribly inconsistent of me again.

Preferences?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

None at all. We can leave it as is :-)

@tkoeppe tkoeppe merged commit 913a4e8 into cplusplus:master Jul 12, 2016
tkoeppe pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 12, 2016
@AlisdairM AlisdairM deleted the indexing_clause_27 branch July 13, 2016 15:55
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