Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Editorial NB comments #5942

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Nov 15, 2022
Merged

Editorial NB comments #5942

merged 10 commits into from
Nov 15, 2022

Conversation

tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

@tkoeppe tkoeppe commented Nov 8, 2022

source/compatibility.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Nov 12, 2022

@Dani-Hub: would you care to have a quick look at these editorial fixes?

@Dani-Hub
Copy link
Member

Dani-Hub commented Nov 12, 2022

@tkoeppe I don't trust my latex capabilities so much to be a confident to make a reliable latex review. I searched for a PDF download under actions, but couldn't find one, maybe I searched at the wrong place, so could you give me a hint, please?

@JohelEGP
Copy link
Contributor

You need to go from a job to the summary. Once there, the artifacts will be at the bottom.
1668260244

@Dani-Hub
Copy link
Member

Great - thanks for your help!

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Nov 12, 2022

Ah yes -- thank you, @JohelEGP!

@Dani-Hub
Copy link
Member

Because of the vast list I provide a list of explicit confirmations. If you notice a missing NB comment in my list, I have not confirmed it, this allows for validation of the validator:
CA 062: Confirmed
FR 008: Confirmed
FR 027: Confirmed
GB 136: Confirmed
GB 137: Partially Confirmed (I got confused by the commit referring to [vector.bool.pspc] but not actually touching this sub-clause but instead touching [func.wrap.move.ctor]): Can someone clarify?
US 034: Confirmed
US 100: Confirmed
US 119: Confirmed
US 120: Confirmed

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Nov 12, 2022

Because of the vast list I provide a list of explicit confirmations. If you notice a missing NB comment in my list, I have not confirmed it, this allows for validation of the validator:

List looks right, thank you! (There are additional NB comments on the ballot that have been solved by other means, but these are the 9 ones which required editorial changes.)

GB 137: Partially Confirmed (I got confused by the commit referring to [vector.bool.pspc] but not actually touching this sub-clause but instead touching [func.wrap.move.ctor]): Can someone clarify?

That's a mistake in the commit message (a confusion with 3bf3ba0, which I already applied editorially), which came about when I was trying to fix several distinct index-related issues. I will fix the message, well-spotted!

@Dani-Hub
Copy link
Member

Thanks. In this case In would confirm my complete list

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Nov 12, 2022

Great, thank you very much!

The correct explanation is that classes `B1` and `D1` do not have
default constructors, not that they have deleted default constructors.

Fixes NB CA 062 (C++23 CD).
This organises the material for <span> and <mdspan> into separate
subclauses, rather than having all constituent parts being siblings in
the same subclause. Even though we now have some subclauses six levels
deep, this seems like an improvement. As a drive-by, this allows us to
move a subclause on a non-member span helper function up one level,
where it is more appropriate.

Fixes NB FR 027 (C++23 CD).
Partially fixes NB GB 137 (C++23 CD).
The private, exposition-only data member is not useful in the library
index. However, there seems no reason to not show it in the general
index, so we move the index entry from the library index to the
general index.

Partially fixes NB GB 137 (C++23 CD).
This was an editorial mistake introduced by the transformation of the
requirement tables into regular paragraphs.

Fixes NB US 100 (C++23 CD).
Our style guide says that "equivalent to <expression>" is the
appropriate style for an expression of type `void`, which is the case
for `throw`. This avoids the awkward situation of having "equivalent
to: `throws;`" appear in the middle of a paragraph without proper
terminal punctuation.

Fixes NB US 119 (C++23 CD).
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment