On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:34:20PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 at 21:51, Gerald Pfeifer <ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 12 Oct 2022, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > +<p> > > > +The two overload resolutions approach was complicated and quirky, so > > > users > > > +should transition to the newer model. This change means that code that > > > +previously didn't compile in C++17 will now compile, for example:</p> > > > > I looked at this recently and am wondering whether there is a word > > missing: "two overload" -> "two-stage overload"? > > > > If so, the patch below addresses that > > > > On the way, I changed "[code] will now compile" to "[code] may now > > compile", since not every code that failed to compile before will now > > compile (e.g., syntactically incorrect code). > > > > What do you think? > > No, it should either be "two-stage overload resolution" or leave it > unchanged. But "two-stage overload resolutions" (plural) is wrong.
I hadn't noticed the plural before. I agree that's wrong. Sorry :(. Marek
