Content deleted Content added
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Computing}}. Keep 1 different rating in {{WikiProject C/C++}}. Tag: |
→Remove trigraphs: Reply |
||
Line 397:
:At first, this article only mentioned the alternative keyword representations (like <code>or</code>). So, for consistency, I added digraphs since they were added to the standards at the same time and for the same reason. However, adding digraphs but not trigraphs also seemed inconsistent since they can both be used to represent the operators. <code>a??(0??)</code> and <code>a<:0:></code> mean exactly the same thing despite the former being just <code>a[0]</code> after the preprocessor and the latter using alternartive tokens with the same meaning. To a programmer using them it's a distinction without a difference. In addition, <code>a or b</code> is implemented as a keyword in C++ and as a macro in C. So, I argue that there is precedent to adding preprocessor substitutions to the list. And lastly, as you correctly said, trigraphs can also appear outside operators. However, that's also true for the keywords since in e.g. the declaration <code>int and a = 0;</code> the <code>and</code> is not an operator. [[User:Nickps|Nickps]] ([[User talk:Nickps|talk]]) 09:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
::After noticing that I still missed some digraphs and trigraphs on the conversion operators i.e.<code>R<%a%></code> and <code>R??<a??></code> plus the ones with <code>auto</code>, I realised the whole thing is pointless and removed all alternative spellings. If anyone disagrees they are free to revert but I don't think it's worth it. My argument above still stands which is why I also removed the operator synonyms like <code>and</code>. [[User:Nickps|Nickps]] ([[User talk:Nickps|talk]]) 22:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
== Is <code>decltype</code> an operator? ==
| |||