consider renaming [*.erasure] to [*.erase]

cplusplus / draft

C++ standards drafts

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/

5.68k stars 749 forks source link

consider renaming [.erasure] to [.erase] #2516

Closed zygoloid closed 5 years ago

zygoloid commented 5 years ago

We'd need to move [string.erase] out of the way first.

However, reserving [containername.erase] for a member named erase, and using a different name for the non-member form, seems preferable. Maybe [*.erase.nonmem] for the new ones?

jensmaurer commented 5 years ago

[*.erase.nonmem] seems a bit long...

jensmaurer commented 5 years ago

Editorial meeting:

[string.erase] stays as-is.
Going for [*.string.nonmem] is worse than [*.erasure].
Net result: Do nothing.

cplusplus / draft

consider renaming [*.erasure] to [*.erase] #2516

consider renaming [.erasure] to [.erase] #2516