Skip to content

[basic.link], [expr.ref] Harmonize font for tuple representing direct base class relationship #8333

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[basic.link], [expr.ref] Harmonize font for tuple representing direct base class relationship #8333

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion source/basic.tex
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -3264,7 +3264,7 @@
\item
an entity, value, or object that is TU-local,
\item
a direct base class relationship (\tcode{D}, \tcode{B})\iref{class.derived.general}
a direct base class relationship $(D, B)$\iref{class.derived.general}
for which either \tcode{D} or \tcode{B} is TU-local, or
\item
a data member description ($T$, $N$, $A$, $W$, $\mathit{NUA}$)\iref{class.mem.general}
Expand Down
6 changes: 3 additions & 3 deletions source/expressions.tex
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -4219,10 +4219,10 @@

\pnum
If \tcode{E2} is a \grammarterm{splice-expression},
then let \tcode{T1} be the type of \tcode{E1}.
then let $\mathit{T1}$ be the type of \tcode{E1}.
\tcode{E2} shall designate either
a member of \tcode{T1} or
a direct base class relationship $(\tcode{T1}, \tcode{B})$.
a member of $\mathit{T1}$ or
a direct base class relationship $(\mathit{T1}, B)$.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd suggest to leave the code font for T1 alone and say in the last line:

"or a direct base class relationship $(D, B)$ where $D$ is the type \tcode{T1}."

That seems least awkward from a "types are code font" perspective.

@tkoeppe , what do you think?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To be fair, we have some other places where types are turned into math font because $T$ later appears in some tuple, such as a data member description; see #8278

I don't really care either way; both options suck equally.


\pnum
If \tcode{E2} designates a bit-field, \tcode{E1.E2} is a bit-field. The
Expand Down