This is the mail archive of the newlib@sourceware.org mailing list for the newlib project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Nov 30 18:08, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > On 2017-11-30 12:05, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Nov 30 12:40, Craig Howland wrote: > >> On 11/30/2017 11:11 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >>> On Nov 30 10:53, Craig Howland wrote: > >>>> On 11/30/2017 05:28 AM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > >>>>> This completely removes TRAD_SYNOPSIS and renames ANSI_SYNOPSIS to > >>>>> SYNOPSIS throughout Newlib's docuemntation. I'm just not sure about > >>>>> the doc tools themselves; should support for both of those names also > >>>>> be removed? > >>>>> > >>>> A thought is to leave them in the doc tools. Since the tools treat SYNOPSIS > >>>> and ANSI_SYNOPSIS the same, they'll work the same with or without the > >>>> present change. Leaving in TRAD_SYNOPSIS as something to be ignored plus > >>>> keeping ANSI_SYNOPSIS as working could possibly help out people that have > >>>> added their own stuff, not forcing them to make these same changes. > >>>> (Probably a very small to non-existent set of people, but it is difficult to > >>>> know if there are any or not.) It doesn't seem to hurt anything to leave > >>>> them, although adding a note that they have been retained for legacy > >>>> purposes might be a good idea. > >>> Wouldn't it be better in the long run to fail on seeing a TRAD_SYNOPSIS > >>> or ANSI_SYNOPSIS and tell the dev to remove the first and to rename the > >>> latter? It's not very hard to fix, > >>> > >> It depends on your point of view. I agree that it is easy to fix, but the > >> idea of keeping it was thinking that if I happened to have files that > >> suddenly became obsolete and I had to spend to to alter the word I would be > >> annoyed at the waste of time: discover the problem, track down how to fix > >> it, then do it. Figuring it out would likely be the longest. > > > > That was the idea: The doc building process should not simply fail but > > explain what's wrong and just print a matching message during build: > > > > "bla bla, outdated, remove TRAD_SYNOPSIS and rename ANSI_SYNOPSIS > > to SYNOPSIS, bla, bla" > > Apparently error messages during doc building are printed to a > non-obvious location, meaning these probably wouldn't be seen. Simply > removing any mention of these tags apparently causes them to be ignored. > Is there a way to raise an error when these tags are found? > > If there is no simple solution to this, perhaps we should consider this > separately from the existing patchset. Makes sense. ACK to the series. Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Maintainer Red Hat
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |