This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- From: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:28:29 +0100
- Subject: Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <528A7C8F dot 8060805 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311182312130 dot 8831 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <orob5fv8nl dot fsf at livre dot home>
On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 05:23 -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> One way that occurs to me to avoid this incorrect assumption is to use
> non-standard terms, defined elsewhere in the manual, instead of the
> well-known *-Safe terms. We could then set the expectations correctly
> in the definition of the terms. E.g., @mtsafe could expand to MT-C (to
> be read with a strong Australian accent ;-), and then MT-C could be
> defined in intro.texi as MT-Safe with the current implementation, but
> subject to change.
What about adding "preliminary" or a similar word to the terms? This
would hopefully lead readers to investigate why the tagging isn't final.