fixup: use math formatting for B(I)

Author: jensmaurer

source/iterators.tex

@@ -1366,14 +1366,14 @@
 
 \pnum
 For every integer-class type \tcode{I},
-let \tcode{B(I)} be a unique hypothetical extended integer type
+let $B(\tcode{I})$ be a unique hypothetical extended integer type
 of the same signedness with the same width\iref{basic.fundamental} as \tcode{I}.
 \begin{note}
-The corresponding hypothetical specialization \tcode{numeric_limits<B(I)>}
-meets the requirements on \tcode{numeric_limits} specializations
+The corresponding hypothetical specialization \tcode{numeric_limits<$B(\tcode{I})$>}
+Meets the requirements on \tcode{numeric_limits} specializations
 for integral types\iref{numeric.limits}.
 \end{note}
-For every integral type \tcode{J}, let \tcode{B(J)} be the same type as \tcode{J}.
+For every integral type \tcode{J}, let $B(\tcode{J})$ be the same type as \tcode{J}.
 
 \pnum
 Expressions of integer-class type are
@@ -1393,7 +1393,7 @@
 let \tcode{b} be an object of integer-like type \tcode{I2}
 such that the expression \tcode{b} is implicitly convertible to \tcode{I},
 let \tcode{x} and \tcode{y} be, respectively,
-objects of type \tcode{B(I)} and \tcode{B(I2)} as described above
+objects of type $B(\tcode{I})$ and $B(\tcode{I2})$ as described above
 that represent the same values as \tcode{a} and \tcode{b}, and
 let \tcode{c} be an lvalue of any integral type.
 \begin{itemize}
@@ -1414,7 +1414,7 @@
   is well-formed, \tcode{@a} shall also be well-formed
   and have the same value, effects, and value category as \tcode{@x}.
   If \tcode{@x} has type \tcode{bool}, so too does \tcode{@a};
-  if \tcode{@x} has type \tcode{B(I)}, then \tcode{@a} has type \tcode{I}.
+  if \tcode{@x} has type $B(\tcode{I})$, then \tcode{@a} has type \tcode{I}.
 \item
   For every assignment operator \tcode{@=}
   for which \tcode{c @= x} is well-formed,
@@ -1435,9 +1435,9 @@
   \tcode{a @ b} and \tcode{b @ a} shall also be well-formed and
   shall have the same value, effects, and value category as
   \tcode{x @ y} and \tcode{y @ x}, respectively.
-  If \tcode{x @ y} or \tcode{y @ x} has type \tcode{B(I)},
+  If \tcode{x @ y} or \tcode{y @ x} has type $B(\tcode{I})$,
   then \tcode{a @ b} or \tcode{b @ a}, respectively, has type \tcode{I};
-  if \tcode{x @ y} or \tcode{y @ x} has type \tcode{B(I2)},
+  if \tcode{x @ y} or \tcode{y @ x} has type $B(\tcode{I2})$,
   then \tcode{a @ b} or \tcode{b @ a}, respectively, has type \tcode{I2};
   if \tcode{x @ y} or \tcode{y @ x} has any other type,
   then \tcode{a @ b} or \tcode{b @ a}, respectively, has that type.
@@ -1460,9 +1460,9 @@
 For every (possibly cv-qualified) integer-class type \tcode{I},
 \tcode{numeric_limits<I>} is specialized such that
 each static data member \tcode{m}
-has the same value as \tcode{numeric_limits<B(I)>::m}, and
+has the same value as \tcode{numeric_limits<$B(\tcode{I})$>::m}, and
 each static member function \tcode{f}
-returns \tcode{I(numeric_limits<B(I)>::f())}.
+returns \tcode{I(numeric_limits<$B(\tcode{I})$>::f())}.
 
 \pnum
 For any two integer-like types \tcode{I1} and \tcode{I2},