llvm/llvm-project

Docs for [[clang::no_specializations]] attribute use "explicitly specialized" ambiguously

Open

#143719 opened on Jun 11, 2025

View on GitHub
 (4 comments) (0 reactions) (1 assignee)C++ (26,378 stars) (10,782 forks)batch import
clangdocumentationgood first issue

Description

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 terminology 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.

Contributor guide

Tech stack
cpp
Domain
documentation
Issue type
documentation
DifficultyEstimated implementation difficulty for a new contributor, from 1 for very small changes to 5 for expert-level work.
1
Estimated timeA rough time range for an experienced contributor to investigate, implement, test, and prepare a pull request.
under 1 hour
Activity statusHow available the issue appears right now: fresh, active, stale, blocked, or waiting on maintainer input.
blocked
ClarityHow clearly the issue explains the expected change, acceptance criteria, and next step.
clear
Prerequisites
None
Newbie friendlinessA 1-100 score estimating how approachable this issue is for first-time contributors.
40
Research direction
Review the Clang documentation source for the AttributeReference page, specifically the section on `no specializations`. The issue suggests rephrasing the wording to align with C++ standard terminology. Check for any related discussion in the comments. Since there is an assignee, do not start work without maintainer confirmation.