| Issue |
143719
|
| Summary |
Docs for [[clang::no_specializations]] attribute use "explicitly specialized" ambiguously
|
| Labels |
clang
|
| Assignees |
|
| Reporter |
jwakely
|
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#no-specializations says (emphasis mine):
> `[[clang::no_specializations]]` can be applied to function, class, or variable templates which should not be **explicitly specialized** by users. This is primarily used to diagnose user specializations of standard library type traits.
This seems like a poor choice of wording. The C++ standard talks about "partial specializations" and "explicit specializations", but what Clang refers to as "explicitly specialized" seems to be both. I think this is an internal term used within the clang codebase and does not match the terminilogy of the C++ standard.
IMHO it would make more sense for user-facing docs to use the standard terminology, or pick a completely different term which isn't ambiguous.
![]()
_______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
