-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 799
\defnc and \defna #3880
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
\defnc and \defna #3880
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -833,7 +833,7 @@ | |
| \pnum | ||
| For a given declarative region \placeholder{R} | ||
| and a point \placeholder{P} outside \placeholder{R}, | ||
| the set of \defnx{intervening}{region!declarative!intervening} declarative regions | ||
| the set of \defna{intervening}{region!declarative} declarative regions | ||
| between \placeholder{P} and \placeholder{R} | ||
| comprises all declarative regions | ||
| that are or enclose \placeholder{R} and do not enclose \placeholder{P}. | ||
|
|
@@ -2863,7 +2863,7 @@ | |
| \end{example} | ||
| As a consequence of these rules, | ||
| all declarations of an entity are attached to the same module; | ||
| the entity is said to be \defnx{attached}{attached!entity} to that module. | ||
| the entity is said to be \defnc{attached}{entity} to that module. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Maybe There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Well, the syntax is a bit different, but you're right about the parallel. Do you have a suggestion for There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Well... should There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Another idea for Maybe:
General idea: the text in braces always appears in the document; the text in brackets is only used to form the index entry. What do you think? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. In general, that seems like an improvement: fewer magic names and less in the way of argument-order guesswork. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. There's a standard trick for an optional argument after a mandatory argument: |
||
|
|
||
| \pnum | ||
| \indextext{consistency!type declaration}% | ||
|
|
@@ -2934,7 +2934,7 @@ | |
| \end{note} | ||
|
|
||
| \pnum | ||
| An entity is \defnx{TU-local}{TU-local!entity} if it is | ||
| An entity is \defnc{TU-local}{entity} if it is | ||
| \begin{itemize} | ||
| \item | ||
| a type, function, variable, or template that | ||
|
|
@@ -2966,7 +2966,7 @@ | |
| \end{itemize} | ||
|
|
||
| \pnum | ||
| A value or object is \defnx{TU-local}{TU-local!value or object} if either | ||
| A value or object is \defnc{TU-local}{value or object} if either | ||
| \begin{itemize} | ||
| \item | ||
| it is, or is a pointer to, | ||
|
|
@@ -4246,8 +4246,8 @@ | |
| Every alignment value shall be a non-negative integral power of two. | ||
|
|
||
| \pnum | ||
| Alignments have an order from \defnx{weaker}{alignment!weaker} to | ||
| \defnx{stronger}{alignment!stronger} or \defnx{stricter}{alignment!stricter} alignments. Stricter | ||
| Alignments have an order from \defna{weaker}{alignment} to | ||
| \defna{stronger}{alignment} or \defna{stricter}{alignment} alignments. Stricter | ||
| alignments have larger alignment values. An address that satisfies an alignment | ||
| requirement also satisfies any weaker valid alignment requirement. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -5107,7 +5107,7 @@ | |
| floating-point operations; see also~\ref{support.limits}. | ||
| \end{note} | ||
| Integral and floating-point types are collectively | ||
| called \defnx{arithmetic}{type!arithmetic} types. | ||
| called \defna{arithmetic}{type} types. | ||
| \indextext{\idxcode{numeric_limits}!specializations for arithmetic types}% | ||
| Specializations of the standard library template | ||
| \tcode{std::numeric_limits}\iref{support.limits} shall specify the | ||
|
|
||
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can this be
\defnadjx{intervening}{declarative regions}{region!declarative}? Similar question for various other uses of\defnabelow.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you use
!in the third argument to\defnadjx(i.e., in thesee{}in\indextext)?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we'd need some magic to turn
!s into,s. I don't know if\seedoes that for us but it seems relatively straightforward to build.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That said, should we really be indexing "declarative region" under "region" rather than under "declarative region" in the first place?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We provide "a b, see b, a" because it's standard to look up "noun, adjective", so maybe people do look for "region, declarative" even though the generic word "region" is not useful here? (I also haven't checked to see whether the other uses of
\defnaare "misuses" like this.)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well, we don't have index entries for "binding, structured" or "operand, unevaluated". I think that's somewhat appropriate: these aren't "adjective noun" so much as an atomic noun phrase.
I think the right thing here is:
\defnadj{intervening}{declarative region}There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You mean
\defnadjx{intervening}{declarative regions}{declarative region}for this case, right? And are you saying that (\defnadjand)\defnadjxshould be changed to always index adjective noun and generate a see for noun, adjective?