[diff.mods.to.headers] De-index non-existent headers #1878
Conversation
Three C11 headers are called out as not being part of C++. They should not be listed in the index of headers, which currently points to the two places that explicitly state these headers do not exist.
|
@tkoeppe: Ahem. Shouldn't we leave those headers in the main index? |
|
@jensmaurer: I'm sympathetic to the idea of not indexing things that aren't part of C++. The PR wanted to do that; it was I who renamed the commit message to erroneously refer only to the header index. Sorry for that, I'll force-push and amendment. |
…1878) Three C11 headers are called out as not being part of C++. They should not be listed in the index of headers, which currently points to the two places that explicitly state these headers do not exist.
|
@tkoeppe: "not indexing things that aren't part of C++": Why? Someone coming from C might want to ask the question "where did stdatomic.h go in C++" and look in the main index for that. Well, even the header index would maybe benefit from a "see" reference. |
|
@jensmaurer: ...meh, maybe. I'm not convinced. If someone comes up complaining that they can't figure out what happened to |
|
On Dec 6, 2017, at 8:54 AM, Thomas Köppe ***@***.***> wrote:
@jensmaurer: ...meh, maybe. I'm not convinced. If someone comes up complaining that they can't figure out what happened to <stdnoreturn.h>, I'll gladly reconsider, but I'd rather be rid of this otherwise.
I respectfully but strongly disagree with this position, as it runs counter to my understanding of the purpose of an index.
If I want to find something, I look in the appropriate index with the expectation that, if a term is mentioned in the document, I will find the matching page reference(s). By selectively omitting terms from indexing, I am at best hindered from locating what I am seeking, and at worst am given the impression that the document does not at all mention the term.
Accordingly, I strongly object to the present decision, and strongly support Jens' position.
Please revert this commit and let us reconsider how best to handle such situations.
|
|
As discussed with @zygoloid, since these are not C++ headers, they have no place in the C++ header index. I will add re-add main index entries for the headers, though, to make them findable again. |
|
I have altered the index. |
|
On Dec 6, 2017, at 12:55 PM, Thomas Köppe ***@***.***> wrote:
As discussed with @zygoloid, since these are not C++ headers, they have no place in the C++ header index. I will add re-add main index entries for the headers, though, to make them findable again.
That seems optimal to me. Thank you.
|
|
@tkoeppe: Thank you. |
|
Thanks Thomas - that more accurately reflects my original intent as well. |
Three C11 headers are called out as not being part of C++.
They should not be listed in the index of headers, which
currently points to the two places that explicitly state
these headers do not exist.