[range.adaptor.object][range.adaptor.object] Index special kinds of function objects and their related operator|#8089
Conversation
|
|
||
| \pnum | ||
| A \term{customization point object} is a function object\iref{function.objects} | ||
| A \defn{customization point object} is a function object\iref{function.objects} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we really want \defn here and not, say, \defnadj?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess it's better to say \defnadj{customization point}{object}, \defnadj{range adaptor closure}{object}, and \defnadj{range adaptor}{object}.
But for pipeable objects we're saying \defnadj{pipeable}{sender adaptor closure object} and \defnadj{pipeable}{sender adaptor object}, and there're no corresponding non-pipeable ones, which looks weird to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I haven't looked in detail of how we're indexing all those things. It looks like you've spent some time on this; what would you recommend?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's better to say \defnadj{pipeable sender adaptor closure}{object}. It seems that the current indexing style of these things was decided by @jensmaurer during working on #7114. I'm not sure whether this was intended.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also paging @AlisdairM and @Eelis as indexing experts.
frederick-vs-ja
force-pushed
the
index-pipeline-operators
branch
from
2db2a04 to
7339382
Compare
|
I think this is a nice improvement over the status quo, even if this might not be the global optimum. |
3 participants
As drive-by, also change
\termto\defnin [customization.point.object] to index "customization point object".Fixes #8052. Fixes #6967.