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

[input.output] Review library index for clause 27 #879

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

AlisdairM
Copy link
Contributor

This review handles several topic related to the index of library names:

apply indexlibrarymember for all member functions other than constructors/destructors
consistent ordering of indexlibrarymember{identifier}{class-name}
every index macro has a trailing % to avoid accidental whitespace
ensure headers are indexed with synopsis
ensure every itemdecl has a library index entry
fix some mislabeled index entries
minor reordering of paragraphs so istream/ostream have consistent layout
add a missing entry to index of implementation defined behavior

  apply indexlibrarymember for all member functions other than constructors/destructors
  consistent ordering of indexlibrarymember{identifier}{class-name}
  every index macro has a trailing % to avoid accidental whitespace
  ensure headers are indexed with synopsis
  ensure every itemdecl has a library index entry
  fix some mislabeled index entries
  minor reordering of paragraphs so istream/ostream have consistent layout
@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Aug 6, 2016

Hm, I think I would prefer these distinct changes as separate commits. They can be in the same PR, just as separate commits. I'll take this one and fix it up for now.

@@ -5914,6 +5916,19 @@
\postcondition
\tcode{rdbuf() == sb}.

\indexlibrary{\idxcode{basic_ostream}!constructor}%
\begin{itemdecl}
basic_ostream(basic_ostream&& rhs);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This constructor does not appear in the synopsis. Why is this?

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Aug 6, 2016

Superseded by PR #891.

@tkoeppe tkoeppe closed this Aug 6, 2016
@AlisdairM AlisdairM deleted the index_review_clause_27 branch August 8, 2016 14:17
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