Re: [PATCH] document cp_operator_id and cp_assignment_operator_id

[Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>]

OK.

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/15/2017 03:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Attached is a documentation-only change to add comments explaining
>>> the C++ cp_operator_id and cp_assignment_operator_id macros.
>>
>>
>> Hmm, I'd say that these macros return the identifier used internally
>> to represent "operator OP" and "operator OP=", respectively.  Looking
>> up overloads is one thing you can do with that name, but the same is
>> true of all identifiers, do we need to mention it specifically?
>
>
> I tried to describe the use case that I needed but that wasn't
> obvious to me from the examples I cam across.
>
> If these cp_foo_id() helpers and the other identifier macros were
> defined and documented in one place there could be a few examples
> at the top of the section listing them showing some of the less
> obvious use cases.  As it is, cp_operator_id() and
> cp_assignment_operator_id() are defined in one place (and using
> the cp_foobar_id() naming convention), while the {ctor,dtor}_
> identifier macros in another (and using a different convention).
> Perhaps there's a good reason for it but knowing as little as
> I do I find it confusing because I used both to do the same
> thing: iterate over the overloads of the special functions.
>
> With that in mind, attached is an update that tries to clarify
> things without mentioning the example in the comments for (just)
> the operator _id macros.
>
> If you have a better suggestion I'll be happy to take it.
>
> Martin