[std] Use grammar typedef-name instead of 'typedef name'. #4417
Conversation
|
I do like this, but I feel it's a bit large and novel to get into the present mailing. Let's aim for the next mailing and get some more review feedback on this one. |
source/basic.tex
Outdated
| typedef unsigned char T; | ||
| template<class T | ||
| = T // lookup finds the typedef name of \tcode{unsigned char} | ||
| = T // lookup finds the \grammarterm{typedef-name} of \tcode{unsigned char} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"of" seems awkward here. Is there a term like "resolving to" that we use for this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
removed "of unsigned char", which doesn't seem to add much in this example
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I still see the "of unsigned char" here.
|
@zygoloid, @burblebee: it'd be nice if we could land this; would you all be able to take another careful look? |
|
@zygoloid, @burblebee, could you kindly review these changes? I'd like to aim to merge these after the next meeting's motions, for the post-meeting working draft. |
wg21bot
added
the
needs rebase
jensmaurer
removed
the
needs rebase
jensmaurer
added
the
decision-required
zygoloid
left a comment
zygoloid
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me with or without the removal of "of unsigned char".
source/basic.tex
Outdated
| typedef unsigned char T; | ||
| template<class T | ||
| = T // lookup finds the typedef name of \tcode{\keyword{unsigned} \keyword{char}} | ||
| = T // lookup finds the \grammarterm{typedef-name} of \tcode{\keyword{unsigned} \keyword{char}} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We discussed removing the "of unsigned char" here but it's still present. Is that intentional?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No. Removed for good.
The former includes names introduced by alias-declarations, the latter (arguably) does not.
jensmaurer
removed
the
decision-required
4 participants
The former includes names introduced by alias-declarations,
the latter (arguably) does not.
Fixes #4401