Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2022 19:59:53 +0300
Well, consider another phrase from the C++ Standard
«2 In a function-definition, either void declarator ; or declarator ; shall be a well-formed function declaration ...»
What is the « void declarator »? I have not found the definition of this term. It seems these word combination is encountered only once in the C++ Standard.
With best regards
(Vlad from Moscow)
You can meet me at http://cpp.forum24.ru/ or www.stackoverflow.com or http://ru.stackoverflow.com
>Среда, 7 декабря 2022, 14:53 +03:00 от Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler_at_[hidden]>:
>
>Am Mi., 7. Dez. 2022 um 12:21 Uhr schrieb Vladimir Grigoriev via
>Std-Discussion < std-discussion_at_[hidden] >:
>>
>> The main problem of the C+ Standard is that some definitions can be interpreted in differenct ways.
>
>Is that really a specific problem of the C++ standard or just a
>problem of every natural language?
>
>> Consider for example the following quote from the C++ Standard
>>
>> 1 A trivially copyable class is a class: (1.1) — that has at least one eligible copy constructor, move constructor, copy assignment operator, or move assignment operator
>>
>> The phrase can be interpreted for example like
>>
>> 1 A trivially copyable class is a class: (1.1) — that has at least one eligible copy constructor, or one eligible move constructor, or one eligible copy assignment operator, or one eligible move assignment operator
>>
>> or like
>>
>> 1 A trivially copyable class is a class: (1.1) — that has at least one eligible copy constructor, and at least one eligible move constructor, and at least one eligible copy assignment operator, or move assignment operator
>>
>> As you can see the definition can be interpreted differently.
>>
>> How should the definition be interpreted?
>
>My understanding of the Oxford comma rules
>( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma ) is that in such a list
>each item is combined with the "or"/"and" at the very last end to
>signal the combination operator between the individual items, which
>would correspond to your first interpretation.
>
>Thanks,
>
>- Daniel
«2 In a function-definition, either void declarator ; or declarator ; shall be a well-formed function declaration ...»
What is the « void declarator »? I have not found the definition of this term. It seems these word combination is encountered only once in the C++ Standard.
With best regards
(Vlad from Moscow)
You can meet me at http://cpp.forum24.ru/ or www.stackoverflow.com or http://ru.stackoverflow.com
>Среда, 7 декабря 2022, 14:53 +03:00 от Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler_at_[hidden]>:
>
>Am Mi., 7. Dez. 2022 um 12:21 Uhr schrieb Vladimir Grigoriev via
>Std-Discussion < std-discussion_at_[hidden] >:
>>
>> The main problem of the C+ Standard is that some definitions can be interpreted in differenct ways.
>
>Is that really a specific problem of the C++ standard or just a
>problem of every natural language?
>
>> Consider for example the following quote from the C++ Standard
>>
>> 1 A trivially copyable class is a class: (1.1) — that has at least one eligible copy constructor, move constructor, copy assignment operator, or move assignment operator
>>
>> The phrase can be interpreted for example like
>>
>> 1 A trivially copyable class is a class: (1.1) — that has at least one eligible copy constructor, or one eligible move constructor, or one eligible copy assignment operator, or one eligible move assignment operator
>>
>> or like
>>
>> 1 A trivially copyable class is a class: (1.1) — that has at least one eligible copy constructor, and at least one eligible move constructor, and at least one eligible copy assignment operator, or move assignment operator
>>
>> As you can see the definition can be interpreted differently.
>>
>> How should the definition be interpreted?
>
>My understanding of the Oxford comma rules
>( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma ) is that in such a list
>each item is combined with the "or"/"and" at the very last end to
>signal the combination operator between the individual items, which
>would correspond to your first interpretation.
>
>Thanks,
>
>- Daniel
Received on 2022-12-07 17:00:19