Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Inconsistent Latex coding style used in clauses of \itemdescrs #3128

Closed
burblebee opened this issue Aug 5, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #3219
Closed

Inconsistent Latex coding style used in clauses of \itemdescrs #3128

burblebee opened this issue Aug 5, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #3219
Assignees
@jensmaurer

Comments

@burblebee
Copy link
Contributor

burblebee commented Aug 5, 2019 •
edited

We're inconsistent in the Latex coding style used for clauses of \itemdescrs. Some clauses use 2 space indentation for the text (similar to \items), some place the text on the same line as <clause_macro>, some place the <clause_macro> and text on the same line as \pnum, etc.. Our guidelines don't specify how they should be formatted.

Can we come up with some guidelines, document them, and do a global whitespace change to fix the old formatting style so that we can follow the guidelines when applying edits?
@burblebee burblebee added the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Aug 5, 2019
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

jensmaurer commented Aug 5, 2019 •
edited

\pnum should always be alone on a line, and we're pretty consistent about it (10k of the former, 460 with text following).
The question is whether there should be text following \effects, for example, or whether that text should be on a new line. We're pretty evenly split for \returns (969 alone, 1457 not alone) and \effects (1005 alone, 1193 not alone).
My opinion: Let's have \effects etc. alone on a line.
I'm not eager to have indentation here, btw.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Editorial teleconference: Agreed with @jensmaurer's suggestions. Do not integrate \pnum with \markers to be able to find a paragraph by counting \pnum.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer removed the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Sep 9, 2019
@jensmaurer jensmaurer mentioned this issue Sep 10, 2019
Merged
@jensmaurer jensmaurer self-assigned this Sep 11, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@jensmaurer jensmaurer

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

[std] Move \pnum and library element markers to a line of their own. jensmaurer/draft
2 participants
@burblebee @jensmaurer