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.
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
[diff] Inconsistent LaTeX source code style #3129
Comments
[diff.iso] is just "C++ and ISO C"; did you mean that, or did you mean all of [diff]? |
Editorial teleconference: We should absolutely document the policy. |
Editorial teleconference: \pnum should be on a line by itself. |
Editorial teleconference: Happier about global rules if/when we enforce them. Otherwise, we will backslide. |
Editorial teleconference: Newlines around "\rationale" etc. macros in diff.iso. Drop empty lines around "codeblock". Thus, no blank lines except to separate differences. |
We're inconsistent in the Latex coding style used for clauses in [diff.iso]. Some place the text on the same line as the <clause_macro>, others don't. Our guidelines don't specify how they should be formatted. I'd like to see us format them similarly to \items, where a single line is used if the text is short, and 2-space indentation is used for clauses which span multiple lines.
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?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: