Difference between revisions of "Talk:cpp/locale"
From cppreference.com
< Talk:cpp
(fmt) |
(→do_*** or *** for facet member functions?: New section) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:[[User:P12|P12]] 01:25, 14 September 2011 (PDT) | :[[User:P12|P12]] 01:25, 14 September 2011 (PDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===do_*** or *** for facet member functions?=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Given that the non-virtual member functions are the public interface of facets, wouldn't it make more sense to refer to them instead of their protected virtual counterparts throughout the wiki? -- [[User:P12|P12]] 09:35, 14 August 2012 (PDT) | ||
Revision as of 08:35, 14 August 2012
See also between cpp/locale/is???, cpp/string/byte/is??? and cpp/string/wide/isw???
Should there be a See Also between character classification here and character classification of cpp/string/byte and cpp/string/wide ? --Cubbi
- I think we should have these shortcuts, but maybe better inside the page of each of the is??? functions.
- By the way, we need to reflect the fact that cpp/locale/is??? and cpp/string/byte/is??? isn't the same function. I think the title of the locale functions should be something like std::isgraph(locale) and the dcl item something like:
| ... (function template) |
- P.S. We already mark some functions similarly as in the above ddcl item, but that style introduces a lot of clutter once we mark a lot of functions in that way (see below).
| ... (function template) |
- P12 01:25, 14 September 2011 (PDT)
do_*** or *** for facet member functions?
Given that the non-virtual member functions are the public interface of facets, wouldn't it make more sense to refer to them instead of their protected virtual counterparts throughout the wiki? -- P12 09:35, 14 August 2012 (PDT)
