Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[complex.value.ops] and [complex.transcendentals] contain failed attempts to xref the C standard #1822

Closed
zygoloid opened this issue Nov 18, 2017 · 5 comments
Closed

[complex.value.ops] and [complex.transcendentals] contain failed attempts to xref the C standard #1822

zygoloid opened this issue Nov 18, 2017 · 5 comments
Assignees
@jensmaurer

Comments

@zygoloid
Copy link
Member

Example:

screenshot from 2017-11-17 18 38 51

Err, no, that's not how we write cross-references to C.

Also, due to the nonstandard formatting, these were missed when rebasing on C11. The first xref (to cproj) should refer to 7.3.9.5 not 7.3.9.4. (The rest, by sheer luck, still seem to be OK, but someone should double-check.)
@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Nov 18, 2017

To the \xrefs!

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

@zygoloid: We usually put those \xref things in a (non-numbered) paragraph by themselves, and we use them only for functions actually inherited from C headers. In the present case, however, we describe C++ functions in <complex> by referring to the C definition of corresponding functions in <complex.h>.

For example,

Remarks: Behaves the same as the C function cproj, defined in 7.3.9.4.

would be reworded as something like

Remarks: Behaves the same as the C function cproj. See also ISO C 7.3.9.5.

Is that what we want?

On a related note, [structure.see.also] explicitly says we point to the C standard when using \xref, but that's a lie when looking at [depr.locale.stdcvt.req]. We should really have a \refc{blah} or so that does \xref ISO C blah.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer added the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Nov 19, 2017
@jensmaurer jensmaurer mentioned this issue Nov 20, 2017
Merged
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

I've gone forward with the "See also" phrasing.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer self-assigned this Nov 20, 2017
@jensmaurer jensmaurer removed the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Nov 20, 2017
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Re-opened to reconsider \xref usage patterns and consistency.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer reopened this Nov 26, 2017
@jensmaurer jensmaurer removed their assignment Nov 26, 2017
@jensmaurer jensmaurer added the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Nov 26, 2017
@zygoloid
Copy link
Member Author

Decision: we should change the description of "SEE ALSO:" in [structure.see.also] to cover cross-references to any normative reference, making the usage in [depr.locale.stdcvt.req] correct, and then check for other places we should be using this, such as [re.synopt] and [re.grammar] for ECMA-262 and various places in filesystem for POSIX probably.

Also add a \xrefc macro for the common "SEE ALSO: ISO C" cases.

@zygoloid zygoloid removed the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Mar 18, 2018
@jensmaurer jensmaurer mentioned this issue Mar 24, 2018
Merged
@jensmaurer jensmaurer self-assigned this Mar 24, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@jensmaurer jensmaurer

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@zygoloid @tkoeppe @jensmaurer