Unify typesetting of ordinals. #2071
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
On May 11, 2018, at 5:58 PM, Kevin Godby ***@***.***> wrote:
This PR unifies the typesetting of ordinals per the guidance provided in issue #653.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
#2071
Commit Summary
• Unify typesetting of ordinals.
File Changes
• M source/classes.tex (2)
• M source/containers.tex (2)
• M source/declarators.tex (12)
• M source/numerics.tex (20)
• M source/overloading.tex (4)
• M source/templates.tex (10)
• M source/utilities.tex (6)
Patch Links:
• https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/pull/2071.patch
• https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/pull/2071.diff
This proposed patch seems to me to go beyond unifying typesetting.
The typesetting changes seem fine, but changing "st" to "th" in some ordinal expressions seems not okay, especially without drawing attention to such. I these adjustments as not at all a purely typesetting matter.
There's no English word "oneth"; we say "first" instead. While I know that some (mostly non-mathematicians) disagree, the ordinal version of "m+1" is pronounced "m plus first" rather than "m + oneth"; therefore, please revert the corresponding parts of this proposed patch and restore "st" as the superior characters in these cases. (See line 1578 of file source/overloading.tex for one example; there are several more in the proposed patch.)
And yes, if we had ordinal versions of "m+2" or "m+3" I would want the corresponding superior characters to be "nd" and "rd", respectively; there's no modern English "twoth" or "threeth" AFAIK.
|
|
@W-E-Brown I restored the two |
|
On May 11, 2018, at 8:46 PM, Kevin Godby ***@***.***> wrote:
@W-E-Brown I restored the two st ordinals in overloading.tex. As far as I noticed, they were the only two there. Did you notice any other instances?
I had thought there were some in numerics, but I don't now see any there. Thank you.
|
|
For posterity: I was curious why we're changing from |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR unifies the typesetting of ordinals per the guidance provided in issue #653.