On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 02:14:14PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: >> I'm not suggesting to drop both. But: >> >> »As a consequence, the following examples are invalid and G++ will no >> longer compile them, because, in the following examples, G++ used to...« >> >> The second occurrence of "the following examples" doesn't add any new >> meaning and is therefore redundant, because you are already referring to >> "the following examples". > > Hm, ok, so: > > Index: porting_to.html > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-7/porting_to.html,v > retrieving revision 1.5 > diff -u -r1.5 porting_to.html > --- porting_to.html 7 Feb 2017 14:22:39 -0000 1.5 > +++ porting_to.html 8 Feb 2017 17:44:57 -0000 > @@ -52,7 +52,8 @@ > > <p> > As a consequence, the following examples are invalid and G++ will no longer > -compile them: > +compile them, because G++ used to treat <code>this-><em>member</em></code> > +where member has a non-dependent type, as type-dependent, and now it doesn't. > </p>
Looks good. Jason
