This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Doc question: is "templatized" a word?
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- Cc: Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:21:28 +0000
- Subject: Re: Doc question: is "templatized" a word?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <589E8ED2.firstname.lastname@example.org> <alpine.LSU.email@example.com>
On 11 February 2017 at 08:48, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>> The documentation for -Wno-non-template-friend refers to "non-templatized
>> friend functions" and "templatized functions". I don't see the term
>> "templatized" used anywhere in the C++ standard. This paragraph also uses
>> "nontemplate function", which I assume refers to the same thing the C++
>> standard spells "non-template function". So does "non-templatized function"
>> also mean "non-template function"? Or does it have some other meaning?
> I would avoid "templatized" and believe "non-template function" is
> more appropriate in your example.
s/templatized function/function template/
But I wonder if that warning is even useful nowadays. The example of
"friend foo(int);" is bogus and is correctly rejected:
fr.cc:2:17: error: ISO C++ forbids declaration of ‘foo’ with no type