[expr.prim.pack.index] Replace "in" with "of" in paragraph 1 - #9312
Merged
jensmaurer merged 1 commit intoSep 4, 2026
Merged
Conversation
eisenwave
added
the
P1-Important
Contributor
|
I think we are splitting hairs here. However, if we wanted to do that change we should do it consistently |
jensmaurer
approved these changes
Sep 4, 2026
Contributor
|
@jensmaurer you don't agree we should be consistent? |
Member
|
I agree we should use "of" instead of "in" when we dissect the first level of grammar. This fixes one such (obvious) occurrence. Patches welcome for the other two occurrences you identified. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #9288
There is an argument to be made that this is not editorial, but I personally think this is basically a typo. The combination "The" and "in" doesn't make any sense anyway here. It would need to be
to make any sense. The intent is pretty clear, especially since this paragraph refers to the grammar snippet immediately above, so it obviously refers to the id-expression of the pack-index-expression as shown above, rather than making some broad and recursive statement.
Implementers are obviously going to be doing the right thing anyway. It would be evil and unhinged to assume that every id-expression recursively needs to denote a pack just because it's nested somewhere in a pack-index-expression.