This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc 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]

Re: manual: Complete @standards in lang.texi.

On 06/16/2017 08:48 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Rical Jasan wrote:
>> 	* manual/lang.texi (LDBL_MANT_DIG): Add annotation.
>> 	(LDBL_DIG): Likewise.
>> 	(LDBL_MIN_EXP): Likewise.
>> 	(LDBL_MIN_10_EXP): Likewise.
>> 	(LDBL_MAX_EXP): Likewise.
>> 	(LDBL_MAX_10_EXP): Likewise.
>> 	(LDBL_MAX): Likewise.
>> 	(LDBL_MIN): Likewise.
>> 	(LDBL_EPSILON): Likewise.
>> 	(FLT_ROUNDS): Change standard from ISO to C90.
>> 	(FLT_RADIX): Likewise.
>> 	(FLT_MANT_DIG, DBL_MANT_DIG): Likewise.
>> 	(FLT_DIG, DBL_DIG): Likewise.
>> 	(FLT_MIN_EXP, DBL_MIN_EXP): Likewise.
>> 	(FLT_MIN_10_EXP, DBL_MIN_10_EXP): Likewise.
>> 	(FLT_MAX_EXP, DBL_MAX_EXP): Likewise.
>> 	(FLT_MAX_10_EXP, DBL_MAX_10_EXP): Likewise.
>> 	(FLT_MAX, DBL_MAX): Likewise.
>> 	(FLT_MIN, DBL_MIN): Likewise.
> OK, but if we're making such changes from ISO to C90 we should have a 
> comment (or visible text in the manual) somewhere (maybe on the definition 
> of @standards) stating the preferred forms of standard names, and what 
> they mean, and how combinations of standards should be represented.

I agree.  One of my eventual goals is to add canonical standards names
as part of's syntax checking.  At (or before) that point --
whenever we reach consensus on what the canonical standards should be --
I envision an update, maybe to creature.texi, where we've talked about
having the rendered Standards: refer to (starting around [1]), that will
meet your above request (visibly).

The reason I extended this patch to touch all the FLT_*, DBL_*, and
LDBL_* constants was because of your comment in [2]:

  "The FLT_* and LDBL_* constants are C90."

It seemed more efficient to do it now, rather than having to (remember
to) dig back through old threads, yet again, later.  Another
consideration I held was your suggested list of standards in [3], which
used C90 and not ISO.

I understand that list was merely a suggestion (and some amendments were
also offered, IIRC), but I've got to start somewhere, and I like the
more-specific standards.  (In fact, I wouldn't argue against "ISO C90"
since I think having the standards body be explicit where possible is
better, but we will theoretically be referencing some documentation of
the standards anyway, so an abbreviated form in @standards could be fine
if it makes the boilerplate more palatable.)

The combinations issue will have some examples coming up soon.  I've
been deferring them until later in the completion patches, so the simple
stuff hopefully gets reviewed sooner and out of the way.

There are still 2 other patches to complete lang.texi, by the way.  The
additional ISO->C90 conversions weren't actually what I was referring to
when I said, "this file is better served by a different set of changes".
 That was opportunistic when I encountered your comment above while
reviewing yours and Zack's reviews of the completion patch in v2.

So my question is, does, "OK, but.." mean, "commit and don't forget to
... later", or, "looks good but also needs ... first"?  I can cut the
conversion out easily enough and still complete the annotations.



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]