llvm/llvm-project

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

Open

#143.719 aberto em 11 de jun. de 2025

Ver no GitHub
 (4 comments) (0 reactions) (1 assignee)C++ (10.782 forks)batch import
clangdocumentationgood first issue

Métricas do repositório

Stars
 (26.378 stars)
Métricas de merge de PR
 (Mesclagem média 1d 2h) (1.000 fundiu PRs em 30d)

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.

Guia do colaborador