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

Style for chain-of-"otherwise" itemizations #5810

Open
tkoeppe opened this issue Sep 4, 2022 · 5 comments
Open

Style for chain-of-"otherwise" itemizations #5810

tkoeppe opened this issue Sep 4, 2022 · 5 comments

Comments

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Sep 4, 2022

Reported by @Dani-Hub: We currently use different placements for "otherwise" in itemizations, namely

  • does x if foo,
  • otherwise does y if bar,
  • otherwise does z.

compared to:

  • does x if foo, otherwise
  • does y if bar, otherwise
  • does z.

The first style ("leading-otherwise") seems more popular (?) than the second ("trailing-otherwise"), though I haven't actually counted. If we prefer one style, we should record that in the wiki and fix up the deviant cases.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

I think we want the style exemplified by [dcl.init.general], i.e.

  • If foo, do x.
  • Otherwise, if bar, do y.
  • Otherwise, do z.

This uses a separate sentence for each bullet (if that fits) and puts "otherwise" in front.

@tkoeppe @jwakely , what do you think?

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Sep 17, 2022

I think if having a separate sentence per bullet is an option, then that's a good style. I suppose the question should only apply to those lists that span a single sentence.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Same: use semicolons at the end of the bullets.

@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Sep 24, 2022

@jwakely , what do you think?

I agree.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Sep 24, 2022

OK, let's add that to the wiki then, and we fix existing wording up when next we come across it. I don't consider this a hugely important instance of "consistency", but it certainly seems like one where we can easily pick a fixed style with minimal downsides.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants