[unique.ptr.single.ctor] Sloppy wording after application of LWG 2905

[timsong-cpp]

After LWG 2905 (part of Kona 2017 LWG motion 20) is applied, we will have something along the lines of

If D is an lvalue reference type A&, then the signatures are:

unique_ptr(pointer p, A& d) noexcept;
unique_ptr(pointer p, A&& d) = delete;

The use of signature is incorrect, as whether a function is defined as deleted or not is not part of the signature. See [defns.signature.member].

The paragraph dealing with the case where D is const A& will also have the same problem.

[jwakely]

In LWG 2905 I pointed out that we could replace the see below stuff with the real signatures:

unique_ptr(pointer p, const D& d) noexcept;
unique_ptr(pointer p, remove_reference_t<D>&& d) noexcept;

Then we could simply say:

The second constructor is defined as deleted if is_reference_v<D> is true"

[timsong-cpp]

Yes, that would fix it. In any event, p11 (the const A& case) seems redundant; it's just p10 (A&) with A being a const-qualified type.

[jwakely]

Yes, it's a curious piece of wording :-)

It dates from the very early days of rvalue references and move semantics, so seems to be acting as a tutorial for how the constructors work.

[jensmaurer]

@zygoloid, how much of this are you comfortable with addressing editorially?

[jensmaurer]

Editorial meeting consensus: Use of the word "signature" is definitely wrong. Delete p11 editorially. Replace "signature" with something else editorially. Replacing the "see below" with the real declarations is fine. Use English "if D is a reference type, the second constructor is defined as deleted."