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

[fs.class.path.general]Where is section 4.12？ #5137

Closed
SainoNamkho opened this issue Dec 3, 2021 · 4 comments
Closed

[fs.class.path.general]Where is section 4.12？ #5137

SainoNamkho opened this issue Dec 3, 2021 · 4 comments

Comments

@SainoNamkho
Copy link

SainoNamkho commented Dec 3, 2021 •
edited

Section 4.12 is referred as

[Example 1: POSIX specifies the mechanism in section 4.12, Pathname resolution. — end example]

fs.class.path.general
but there's no such section 4.12 in the document.
Then what is the section?
@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Dec 3, 2021

Section 4.12 of the POSIX spec referenced in [intro.refs] i.e. ISO/IEC 9945:2009.

@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Dec 3, 2021

Not 4.12 in the C++ standard.

@SainoNamkho
Copy link
Author

Section 4.12 of the POSIX spec referenced in [intro.refs] i.e. ISO/IEC 9945:2009.

Thanks a lot!

@JohelEGP
Copy link
Contributor

JohelEGP commented Dec 3, 2021

POSIX is the OS described in ISO/IEC 9945:2009. My guess is that 4.12 refers to the section of the document POSIX is described in, namely ISO/IEC 9945:2009. So it's still wrong, although fair enough for a note. But not the fact that the reference is split apart (doesn't follow the convention of "document, section"), which is consufing.

Perhaps other such names introduced in [intro.refs] for things described in a document are similarly wrongly used to refer to its document. If that's done normatively, it requires a revision.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@jwakely @JohelEGP @SainoNamkho