Docs for [[clang::no_specializations]] attribute use "explicitly specialized" ambiguously

[jwakely]

https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#no-specializations says (emphasis mine):

[[clang::no_specializations]] can be applied to function, class, or variable templates which should not be explicitly specialized by users. This is primarily used to diagnose user specializations of standard library type traits.

This seems like a poor choice of wording. The C++ standard talks about "partial specializations" and "explicit specializations", but what Clang refers to as "explicitly specialized" seems to be both. I think this is an internal term used within the clang codebase and does not match the terminology of the C++ standard.

IMHO it would make more sense for user-facing docs to use the standard terminology, or pick a completely different term which isn't ambiguous.

[frederick-vs-ja]

It seems that we can simply remove "explicitly". Edit: seems to be good first issue.

[llvmbot]

Hi!

This issue may be a good introductory issue for people new to working on LLVM. If you would like to work on this issue, your first steps are:

1. Check that no other contributor is working on this issue. If someone is assigned to the issue or claimed to be working on it, ping the person. After one week without a response, the assignee may be changed.
2. Leave a comment indicating that you are working on the issue, or just create a pull request after following the steps below. Mention this issue in the description of the pull request.
3. Fix the issue locally.
4. Run the test suite locally. Remember that the subdirectories under test/ create fine-grained testing targets, so you can e.g. use make check-clang-ast to only run Clang's AST tests.
5. Create a Git commit.
6. Run git clang-format HEAD~1 to format your changes.
7. Open a pull request to the upstream repository on GitHub. Detailed instructions can be found in GitHub's documentation. Mention this issue in the description of the pull request.

If you have any further questions about this issue, don't hesitate to ask via a comment in the thread below.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/issue-subscribers-good-first-issue

Author: Jonathan Wakely (jwakely)

https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#no-specializations says (emphasis mine):

> [[clang::no_specializations]] can be applied to function, class, or variable templates which should not be explicitly specialized by users. This is primarily used to diagnose user specializations of standard library type traits.

This seems like a poor choice of wording. The C++ standard talks about "partial specializations" and "explicit specializations", but what Clang refers to as "explicitly specialized" seems to be both. I think this is an internal term used within the clang codebase and does not match the terminology of the C++ standard.

IMHO it would make more sense for user-facing docs to use the standard terminology, or pick a completely different term which isn't ambiguous.

[mdavis36]

Hello, I'd like to take this on as a first issue.