Class templates in Clause 33 are not indented

[jwakely]

For example:

namespace std {
  template <class R>
  class future {

This applies to all the lock types, promise, future and packaged_task. I'll fix it after motions-2017-03-lwg-17 is merged in, because that adds a new lock type (which is not indented, for local consistency).

[jwakely]

Instead of indenting the entire class bodies by an additional two spaces we could take the approach used by reference_wrapper

namespace std {
  template <class R> class future {

[tkoeppe]

@jwakely: I'm not sure. That doesn't generallze well, and we can't do that for every class template. So perhaps we shouldn't do it for any. There's no problem with indenting that body by another two spaces.

[jensmaurer]

Uh, it's nowhere indented, it seems: [ios.overview], [vector.overview]. Do you have an example of your desired indentation?

[tkoeppe]

@jensmaurer: I thought we had already come to a decision on this in a different issue somewhere; check the wiki? [re.traits] would be an example of the style I believe I was referring to, although I think we ultimately decided against that and in favour of the style given in the OP here (in case where we do break the line).

[jensmaurer]

Follow-on discussions in #1576, partly overridden by #1754.