Use \commentellip macro for omitted program text. #2027
Conversation
source/lib-intro.tex
Outdated
| @@ -606,13 +606,13 @@ | |||
| The enumerated type \tcode{\placeholder{enumerated}} can be written: | |||
|
|
|||
| \begin{codeblock} | |||
| enum @\placeholder{enumerated}@ { @$\tcode{\placeholder{V}}_{0}$@, @$\tcode{\placeholder{V}}_{1}$@, @$\tcode{\placeholder{V}}_{2}$@, @$\tcode{\placeholder{V}}_{3}$@, ..... }; | |||
| enum @\placeholder{enumerated}@ { @$\tcode{\placeholder{V}}_{0}$@, @$\tcode{\placeholder{V}}_{1}$@, @$\tcode{\placeholder{V}}_{2}$@, @$\tcode{\placeholder{V}}_{3}$@, @$\cdots$@ }; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are these "center dots"? Why not dots on the baseline (\ldots)? Center dots are for omitted operands of binary folds, like "1 + 2 + \cdots + n".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because @zygoloid wanted "center dots"; see #1390 item 3 "The ..... mega-ellipses should be excised. These should be center dots for horizontal lists and vertical dots for vertical lists."
I'd be happy to do \ldots (they do seem to look better in this context), but we'd need a change of opinion from the Project Editor for that.
Would it speed up the merge if I split this patch from the \commentellip additions? Those seem uncontroversial.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That sounds like (it will have been) an oversight that we should fix. Sure, omit this file from the change and I'll commit the rest.
|
I take it all the \commentellip uses are in non-normative code? |
|
I've double-checked the added ones, and they're all in notes and/or examples. (We can discuss separately whether we want to change \commentellip to use \ldots or other non-\tcode dots.) |
Fixes #1390.