Hmm, what do you think about consistently naming these synopsis sections after the header? ([stdexcept.syn], [system_error.syn], ...).

We're currently inconsistent on this; some are named [surrounding_clause.syn] and some are named [header_name.syn], but in most cases those two names are in fact the same. For instance, we have [time.syn] for and [re.syn] for , and conversely we have [locale.syn] nested within [localization], and [valarray.syn] nested with [numarray]. But naming the synopsis subclauses after their headers seems both more stable and more useful than naming them after the surrounding clause.

That seems reasonable. I have no strong preference, I was just trying to blend in as much as possible.

I'll rename the stable names.

Reworded; new stable names are now:

[support]:

• new.syn
• typeinfo.syn
• exception.syn
• initializer_list.syn

[diagnostics]:

• stdexcept.syn
• system_error.syn

Please rerun makexref to regenerate Annex F. Otherwise, this looks good to me.

Done.

Sounds like a great suggestion to me.-------- Original message --------From: Richard Smith notifications@github.com Date: 11/23/2015 11:59 AM (GMT-08:00) To: cplusplus/draft draft@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [draft] [support, diagnostics] Turn synopses into numbered
sections (#569)
Hmm, what do you think about consistently naming these synopsis sections after the header? ([stdexcept.syn], [system_error.syn], ...).

We're currently inconsistent on this; some are named [surrounding_clause.syn] and some are named [header_name.syn], but in most cases those two names are in fact the same. For instance, we have [time.syn] for and [re.syn] for , and conversely we have [locale.syn] nested within [localization], and [valarray.syn] nested with [numarray]. But naming the synopsis subclauses after their headers seems both more stable and more useful than naming them after the surrounding clause.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.