================
Comment at: docs/LoopConvertTransform.rst:210
@@ +209,3 @@
+Similarly, if ``operator->()`` was overloaded to have side effects, such as
+logging, the semantics will change. In the original loop we may have used the
+arrow operator to dereference the iterator to call a member. This is no longer
----------------
Edwin Vane wrote:
> Try to avoid the "royal we". The obvious fix, to use passive voice, should
> also be avoided if possible. Try something like:
>
> If the iterator's arrow operator was used in the original loop the dot
> operator of a container element will be used instead due to the implicit
> dereference as part of the range-based for loop.
Honestly I would just kill this sentence ("In the original loop ...") since it
is just a vague example: a precise example is given just below.
Also, LLVM has many non-native english speakers in its community, so prefer to
always say `operator->` instead of "the arrow operator" or "operator arrow".
Everybody reading this documentation understands code, but not everybody will
necessarily make the connection (or it will not be immediate) between the
various grammatical variations of saying "operator arrow" and the concept. The
same goes for referring to any other constructs that have an exact way to refer
to them in code.
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D552
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
