From: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
Cc: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] porting_to: Two-stage overload resolution for implicit move removed
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 18:09:10 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZsPChoucg35rmOix@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACb0b4mAfvQk0YVCoKAsEXK1zTxjN+qLBgWXZ2e8Pe8UiD-0Rg@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:34:20PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 at 21:51, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Oct 2022, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > +<p>
> > > +The two overload resolutions approach was complicated and quirky, so users
> > > +should transition to the newer model. This change means that code that
> > > +previously didn't compile in C++17 will now compile, for example:</p>
> >
> > I looked at this recently and am wondering whether there is a word
> > missing: "two overload" -> "two-stage overload"?
> >
> > If so, the patch below addresses that
> >
> > On the way, I changed "[code] will now compile" to "[code] may now
> > compile", since not every code that failed to compile before will now
> > compile (e.g., syntactically incorrect code).
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> No, it should either be "two-stage overload resolution" or leave it
> unchanged. But "two-stage overload resolutions" (plural) is wrong.
I hadn't noticed the plural before. I agree that's wrong. Sorry :(.
Marek
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-19 22:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-12 19:38 Marek Polacek
2022-10-12 20:50 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-10-12 22:24 ` Marek Polacek
2022-10-12 22:38 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-10-12 22:44 ` Marek Polacek
2024-08-19 20:51 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2024-08-19 20:53 ` Marek Polacek
2024-08-19 21:34 ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-08-19 21:35 ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-08-19 22:09 ` Marek Polacek [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZsPChoucg35rmOix@redhat.com \
--to=polacek@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gerald@pfeifer.com \
--cc=jwakely@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).