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.

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

[expr.context] List of back references crossreference the parent subclause #4936

Closed
JohelEGP opened this issue Sep 26, 2021 · 4 comments · Fixed by #4941
Closed

[expr.context] List of back references crossreference the parent subclause #4936

JohelEGP opened this issue Sep 26, 2021 · 4 comments · Fixed by #4941
Assignees

Comments

@JohelEGP
Copy link
Contributor

1632618708
All but the last two crossreference the parent subclause [expr.prop], with two sibling subclauses in-between.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Sorry, I can't parse the sentence "All but the last two crossreference the parent subclause [expr.prop], with two sibling subclauses in-between." Could you try again, please?

@JohelEGP
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm using crossreference as a verb here. The list of references in the parentheses are uses of the term "unevaluated operand". They are supposed to crossreference [expr.context]. The last two in the list do, but not the rest, which instead crossreference the parent subclause. Those that crossreference the parent subclause of [expr.context], which is a .3 leaf subclause, have an error of two (lengthy) subclauses from the actual reference to the intended reference.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Thanks.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

So, in order to improve the general situation, we need a \label{term.unevaluated.operand} at the point where we define it, and then we can just \iref{term.unevaluated.operand} where we want to refer to the section number.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants