[exec.run.loop] Remove code font formatting for count and state

[jensmaurer]

Fixes NB US 231-361 (C++26 CD).

Fixes cplusplus/nbballot#936

[jensmaurer]

@jwakely , having exposition-only data members and an exposition-only enumeration might be the better outcome here, but that leaves the atomic nature of count and state a bit out in the rain.

[jwakely]

It seems a little unnatural to refer to "count" and "state" this way, when they aren't actual variables. We could rephrase p2 in terms of having a counter, and then refer to "the counter" and "the associated state" rather than just "count" and "state". And maybe capitalise the state names, Starting etc.

But I don't feel strongly about that suggestion.

[tkoeppe]

I fully agree that this is now somewhat unnatural. I appreciate that we don't have actual expos-only variables and that the current state is broken in that regard, but the phrasing we use only really works when talking about variables. If we're instead talking about some general concept that was introduced locally, I think the phrasing needs to be adapted.

The terms are introduced in https://eel.is/c++draft/exec.run.loop.general#2: "A run_loop instance has an associated count that [...]". We could refer to this "the instance's count" and "the instance's state", say, or "the {count,state} of the run_loop [object]", or in a crunch even "the {count,state} of *this".

I think I mildly prefer the first version, but I'd like to hear other opinions. With the first version I'd also be happy to say "the instance" only once, so e.g. "The instance's count is 0 and state is starting."

Thoughts?

[jwakely]

I don't love the word "instance, rather than say "the object" or "The run_loop" but "instance" is the word used there in the introductory prose, so it would be consistent.

I like "The instance's count" a lot more than just "Count".

[tkoeppe]

Just "the run_loop" would be nice, but pedants might complain that that's a class and not an object. I'd be happy with "the object", too. But can we try it out in context? "The count of the object is 0 and the state is starting."? "The object's count is 0 and its state is starting."?

[jwakely]

"The object's count is 0 and its state is starting."?

I don't hate it, but I don't love it either.

Another option would be "The run_loop instance's count is 0 and its state is starting" which is verbose but matches the intro wording and should be pedant-proof?

There may be no perfect answer here, we can just pick on that's better than the status quo.

[tkoeppe]

Another option would be "The run_loop instance's count is 0 and its state is starting" which is verbose but matches the intro wording and should be pedant-proof?

Yes, I'd be fine with that, and also don't hate it. But does it scale? Will we say that same thing for every itemdescr?

[tkoeppe]

@jensmaurer Could you perhaps update the PR to use that wording Jon suggested?

[jensmaurer]

@tkoeppe , I've done that.

[tkoeppe]

I think that looks very nice, thank you! @jwakely, what do you think?