search

cplusplus / draft

C++ standards drafts
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/
5.71k stars 751 forks source link

[temp.spec.partial.general], [temp.expl.spec] "Partial specialization" and "explicit specialization" should be defined #7349

Open Eisenwave opened 4 weeks ago

Eisenwave commented 4 weeks ago

I have noticed that we don't ever define these terms:

https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/blob/9dc7b3f30d2971ccb3bb38483a7cdb62065a2c3c/source/templates.tex#L3290-L3291

https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/blob/9dc7b3f30d2971ccb3bb38483a7cdb62065a2c3c/source/templates.tex#L6524-L6525

I imagine it would be better normatively if these terms were formal. Furthermore, I find it annoying that I can't Ctrl+F in the index and find explicit specialization or specialization, explicit that way.

Is there some reason why we don't do \defnadj{partial}{specialization} or something?

frederick-vs-ja commented 4 weeks ago

Also, the class template partial part is probably superfluous or outdated, as variable templates are also covered.