Use 'subclause', not 'section'. #1585
Conversation
source/back.tex
Outdated
| \renewcommand{\preglossaryhook}{This annex lists each section label and the | ||
| corresponding section number and page number, in alphabetical order by label.\\} | ||
| \renewcommand{\preglossaryhook}{This annex lists each subclause label and the | ||
| corresponding subclause number and page number, in alphabetical order by label.\\} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These ones mean "clause or subclause". We could use "[...] lists each clause or subclause label and [...]" but perhaps there's a better way to say that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm going for "clause or subclause" for now.
source/back.tex
Outdated
| @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ \chapter{Bibliography} | |||
| \clearpage | |||
| \input{xrefdelta} | |||
| \renewcommand{\glossaryname}{Cross references from ISO \CppXIV} | |||
| \renewcommand{\preglossaryhook}{All section labels from | |||
| \renewcommand{\preglossaryhook}{All subclause labels from | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Likewise, even though we haven't removed any Clause labels yet.
source/back.tex
Outdated
| @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ \chapter{Bibliography} | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| \clearpage | |||
| \renewcommand{\preindexhook}{The entries in this section are rough descriptions; exact | |||
| \renewcommand{\preindexhook}{The entries in this subclause are rough descriptions; exact | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is not a subclause, it's an index.
|
Rebased and addressed review comments. |
|
Just a random observation, because I was also working on this: in lib-intro.tex, the proposed change is problematic, because we currently say for section
If you change the first "section" to "subclause", then the hierarchy is lost, and in fact outright misleading: "Section" is an up-reference from |
jensmaurer
force-pushed
the
b6
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c358803 to
4769328
Compare
|
@tkoeppe: lib-intro.tex is rather inconsistent here. My suggestion (implemented in the patch) is to remove the "overview" sub-headings in these cases so that the overview text is at the right level. Yes, it's a "hanging paragraph" in ISO speak, but strictly speaking, these introductory sentences should not be shown as normative text anyway. Do we want to find a typographical convention other than "[ Note: ... ]" that keeps such texts readable, but makes them non-normative? Maybe some indent? Or a non-serif font? Both? (Oh, we wanted a non-serif font for the grammar.) |
source/lib-intro.tex
Outdated
| \pnum | ||
| This section describes how a \Cpp program gains access to the facilities of the | ||
| This subclause describes how a \Cpp program gains access to the facilities of the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about: keep the Overview subclause, and use "Subclause \ref{using} describes" here.
source/macros.tex
Outdated
| @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| %%-------------------------------------------------- | |||
| %% Sectioning macros. | |||
| % Each section has a depth, an automatically generated section | |||
| % Each subclause has a depth, an automatically generated subclause | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this change is right. :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These didn't show up in diffpdf.
source/xrefdelta.tex
Outdated
| % Separate sections for introductory paragraphs were removed. | ||
| \removedxref{using.overview} | ||
| \removedxref{constraints.overview} | ||
| \removedxref{conforming.overview} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is now redundant.
|
Change to [xrefdelta] reverted, as advised. |
The ISO Directives, Part 2, prescribe the term 'subclause'. Also remove overview sub-headings for non-normative subclause overview text. Fixes cplusplus#307.
The ISO Directives, Part 2, prescribe the term 'subclause'.
Fixes #307.