You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
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.)
@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.
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.
Activity
tkoeppe commentedon Nov 18, 2017
To the
\xref
s!jensmaurer commentedon Nov 19, 2017
@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,
would be reworded as something like
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 commentedon Nov 20, 2017
I've gone forward with the "See also" phrasing.
jensmaurer commentedon Nov 26, 2017
Re-opened to reconsider \xref usage patterns and consistency.
zygoloid commentedon Mar 18, 2018
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.2 remaining items