[wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 04:17:48PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 07/02/17 15:04 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks much for the review.  Looks ok now?
> 
> I'd suggest adding something to say that the reason these are now
> being diagnosed is that G++ used to treat e.g. this->member, where
> member has a non-dependent type, as type-dependent, and now it
> doesn't.

Like this?


	Marek

On 2017.02.08 at 12:05 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 04:17:48PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On 07/02/17 15:04 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Thanks much for the review.  Looks ok now?
> > 
> > I'd suggest adding something to say that the reason these are now
> > being diagnosed is that G++ used to treat e.g. this->member, where
> > member has a non-dependent type, as type-dependent, and now it
> > doesn't.
> 
> Like this?
> 
> 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 11:05:22 -0000
> @@ -52,7 +52,9 @@
>  
>  <p>
>  As a consequence, the following examples are invalid and G++ will no longer
> -compile them:
> +compile them, because, in the following examples, G++ used to treat

Please drop the redundant ", in the following examples".

> +<code>this-><em>member</em></code> where member has a non-dependent type, as
> +type-dependent, and now it doesn't.
>  </p>
>  
>  <pre><code>
> 
> 	Marek
>

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 12:54:44PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2017.02.08 at 12:05 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 04:17:48PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > On 07/02/17 15:04 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks much for the review.  Looks ok now?
> > > 
> > > I'd suggest adding something to say that the reason these are now
> > > being diagnosed is that G++ used to treat e.g. this->member, where
> > > member has a non-dependent type, as type-dependent, and now it
> > > doesn't.
> > 
> > Like this?
> > 
> > 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 11:05:22 -0000
> > @@ -52,7 +52,9 @@
> >  
> >  <p>
> >  As a consequence, the following examples are invalid and G++ will no longer
> > -compile them:
> > +compile them, because, in the following examples, G++ used to treat
> 
> Please drop the redundant ", in the following examples".

Why?  I don't mean in generally, I only mean in in the context of those
examples.

	Marek

On 2017.02.08 at 13:56 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 12:54:44PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > On 2017.02.08 at 12:05 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 04:17:48PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 07/02/17 15:04 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks much for the review.  Looks ok now?
> > > > 
> > > > I'd suggest adding something to say that the reason these are now
> > > > being diagnosed is that G++ used to treat e.g. this->member, where
> > > > member has a non-dependent type, as type-dependent, and now it
> > > > doesn't.
> > > 
> > > Like this?
> > > 
> > > 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 11:05:22 -0000
> > > @@ -52,7 +52,9 @@
> > >  
> > >  <p>
> > >  As a consequence, the following examples are invalid and G++ will no longer
> > > -compile them:
> > > +compile them, because, in the following examples, G++ used to treat
> > 
> > Please drop the redundant ", in the following examples".
> 
> Why?  I don't mean in generally, I only mean in in the context of those
> examples.

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".

On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Like this?

 As a consequence, the following examples are invalid and G++ will no longer
-compile them:
+compile them, because, in the following examples, 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.

This has two instances of "the following examples".  Perhaps omit
the second instance and break the sentence, putting "G++ used to
treat..." in parenthesis after the first sentence, or adding this
explanation after the examples?

Also you'll need to write "-&gt;" instead of "->", and <em>member</em>
the second time as well (or <i>member</i> which we use in other places
in changes.html for this kind of usage).

This is fine with those changes, thanks.

Gerald