Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 15:51:07 +0000
On Wednesday, November 4, 2020 12:23 AM, D'Alessandro, Luke K <ldalessa_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I think I’ll probably put the tag class into [array.creation] and suggest changing its title from “Array creation functions” to “Array creation.” The alternative would be another section somewhere…?
> [...]
>
> I did consider this, but it didn’t bother me. It wasn’t clear if this is actually something that [array.creation] is trying to avoid. I am concerned about the variance in sizeof(std::array<int, 0>) that I can already observe in current implementations, so it’s a moot point.
Putting my comments together you may find
that I'm suggesting an exposition-only tag
type. So that you don't need to change
the section title, and I don't need to worry
about the mandatory loss of defensiveness.
> I think I’ll probably put the tag class into [array.creation] and suggest changing its title from “Array creation functions” to “Array creation.” The alternative would be another section somewhere…?
> [...]
>
> I did consider this, but it didn’t bother me. It wasn’t clear if this is actually something that [array.creation] is trying to avoid. I am concerned about the variance in sizeof(std::array<int, 0>) that I can already observe in current implementations, so it’s a moot point.
Putting my comments together you may find
that I'm suggesting an exposition-only tag
type. So that you don't need to change
the section title, and I don't need to worry
about the mandatory loss of defensiveness.
-- Zhihao Yuan, ID lichray The best way to predict the future is to invent it. _______________________________________________
Received on 2020-11-04 09:51:20