[dcl.init.string] Reword character array initialization #6488
Conversation
Eisenwave
force-pushed
the
reword-character-array-init
branch
from
bf13ef6 to
ef5b3db
Compare
|
I was overthinking it. After the most recent changes, the more complicated rules weren't even much less verbose, so I've decided to dumb it down and make a list instead. This feels so much better. One noteworthy issue that the first and third bullet have to be assumed to be additive rules by the reader. If the reader assumes that the bullets are mutually exclusive, and I don't think they reasonably should, then this list of items is contradictory. |
Eisenwave
force-pushed
the
reword-character-array-init
branch
from
ef5b3db to
0bb4a1e
Compare
|
The current state is, once more, a situation where we put bullets in front of sentences without them being conditions or similar. They aren't even mutually exclusive. I'm not convinced this is an improvement. I did think, however, that the intermediate state that got rid of repeating all the types was a mild improvement, avoiding repetition. We won't get rid of the special case regardless. |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
nest const in tcode Co-authored-by: Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña <johelegp@gmail.com> fix stray 'a' Co-authored-by: Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña <johelegp@gmail.com> fix semantic changes itemize instead
Eisenwave
force-pushed
the
reword-character-array-init
branch
from
0bb4a1e to
c2a3389
Compare
|
I think @jensmaurer was on the right track. The intermediate version had potential, and if we just drop the use of the defined terms for string literals and focus on the types, everything can be elegantly described in three concise, disjunctive bullets. |
This edit greatly compactifies the current wording. The issue with the status quo is that it contains a massive clause of:
Such a clause is difficult for the reader to follow, and it's easy to make a mistake when matching
BtoYetc. What the paragraph is saying, in essence, is that an array may be initialized by a string literal of the same type. These types are clearly defined in [lex.string.literal], and could be used in this paragraph.We can simply say that
Some care is required due to the string-literals being arrays of
constcharacters.Furthermore, the wording of
is quite verbose, and could be simplified to "optionally brace-enclosed". This is just as clear, but much more concise.