P0492R2 makes dot and dot-dot no longer grammarterms

[jwakely]

Following the changes to the generic path grammar ([path.generic]) the special filenames dot and dot-dot are no longer grammar terms, but are simply defined terms in [fs.def.filename]. (In terms of the grammar they are covered by the filename production.)

Throughout the clause we use \grammarterm{dot} and \grammarterm{dot-dot} to give them a special appearance. Should we use \term instead? Should they only be italicized on their first definition? (IMHO that would make the specification unclear, even though it's consistent with how we present other defined terms).

[zygoloid]

Why do we need these terms at all? Instead of

If the last filename is dot-dot, remove any [...]

we could say

If the last filename is .., remove any [...]

I think that's what we'd do in the core wording in a case where we care about the particular spelling of a terminal. Though we may want some kind of typographical convention to make it more obvious that the comma is not part of the filename.

[jensmaurer]

@zygoloid: Well, in [expr.ref], we sometimes put "(dot)" after . because it's so easy to confuse the operator with prose-level punctuation. And [expr.comma] only talks about "comma operator", never spelling , in prose text. Using "dot-dot" (as a \grammarterm) seems less susceptible to confusion.

[burblebee]

I also like the abstraction dot and dot-dot provide, in case some other OS had a similar grammar but used different tokens.

[jwakely]

in case some other OS had a similar grammar but used different tokens.

They are pathnames in the generic pathname format, which is platform-agnostic. An OS can use different things for the same concepts (or have no way to represent them at all), but a pathname in the generic format still has to recognise . and .. with the established meaning.

[jwakely]

So maybe we should just introduce them with \term and stop italicising them after the first definition.

[jensmaurer]

@jwakely: Fine with me.