Skip to content

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

Closed
@zygoloid

Description

@zygoloid
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.)

Activity

tkoeppe

tkoeppe commented on Nov 18, 2017

@tkoeppe
Contributor

To the \xrefs!

jensmaurer

jensmaurer commented on Nov 19, 2017

@jensmaurer
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.

added
decision-requiredA decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required.
on Nov 19, 2017
jensmaurer

jensmaurer commented on Nov 20, 2017

@jensmaurer
Member

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

self-assigned this
on Nov 20, 2017
removed
decision-requiredA decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required.
on Nov 20, 2017
jensmaurer

jensmaurer commented on Nov 26, 2017

@jensmaurer
Member

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

removed their assignment
on Nov 26, 2017
added
decision-requiredA decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required.
on Nov 26, 2017
zygoloid

zygoloid commented on Mar 18, 2018

@zygoloid
MemberAuthor

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.

removed
decision-requiredA decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required.
on Mar 18, 2018

2 remaining items

Loading
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

No labels
No labels

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

Milestone

No milestone

Relationships

None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

      Participants

      @zygoloid@tkoeppe@jensmaurer

      Issue actions

        [complex.value.ops] and [complex.transcendentals] contain failed attempts to xref the C standard · Issue #1822 · cplusplus/draft