Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
LWG2794 Missing requirements for allocator pointers
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
  • Loading branch information
Dawn Perchik committed Mar 7, 2017
1 parent e3910a8 commit fe6bd88
Showing 1 changed file with 3 additions and 2 deletions.
5 changes: 3 additions & 2 deletions source/lib-intro.tex
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2046,8 +2046,9 @@
No constructor,
comparison function, copy operation, move operation, or swap operation on
these pointer types shall exit via an exception. \tcode{X::pointer} and \tcode{X::const_pointer} shall also
satisfy the requirements for a random access
iterator~(\ref{iterator.requirements}).
satisfy the requirements for

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@tkoeppe

tkoeppe Mar 13, 2017

Contributor

It's weird that we say "requirements for" the first time and "of" the second time, but that's the wording from the paper...

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@burblebee

burblebee Mar 13, 2017

Contributor

From a quick scan, "of" is used more often, but there seems to be a trend to use "of" before types (like satisfy the requirements of \tcode{NullablePointer}), and "for" before a thing (like satisfy the requirements for a constexpr function). So I'll leave as is. Want to open an editorial issue for this as well?

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@tkoeppe

tkoeppe Mar 13, 2017

Contributor

No, I don't care nearly enough :-)

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Copy link
@jensmaurer

jensmaurer Mar 14, 2017

Member

This is #1263.
a random access iterator~(\ref{random.access.iterators}) and of
a contiguous iterator~(\ref{iterator.requirements.general}).

\pnum
Let \tcode{x1} and \tcode{x2} denote objects of (possibly different) types
Expand Down

0 comments on commit fe6bd88

Please sign in to comment.