This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
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: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:11:23 +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> <528BA2DA dot 3090608 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311192205550 dot 8742 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <ortxf6tcpk dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311211304050 dot 14539 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <orzjoxro50 dot fsf at livre dot home> <1385159850 dot 3152 dot 2815 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <orwqjzqnic dot fsf at livre dot home> <1385401937 dot 3152 dot 3317 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <orhab0p8vx dot fsf at livre dot home> <1385409361 dot 3152 dot 3541 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <orli0bnemf dot fsf at livre dot home>
On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 17:32 -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2013, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 17:40 -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Nov 25, 2013, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sat, 2013-11-23 at 11:02 -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> >> On Nov 22, 2013, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Thus, it will be in the context of full English sentences
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually, no; the context of the keywords is supposed to be a one-line
> >> >> âtableâ already containing such abbreviated English words as MT-Safe and
> >> >> AC-Unsafe. It's not running text in any way you look at it.
> >>
> >> > I was referring to the documentation that even the one-line "table"
> >> > would be part of. Which is mostly full English sentences, right?
> >>
> >> I don't think so. At least the following line, like every line that
> >> would precede the table, doesn't seem like English, let alone English
> >> sentences, to me ;-)
> >>
> >> void *realloc (void *addr, size_t size)
>
> > But we document what realloc does in full English sentences, don't we?
>
> Yeah, but why should a table without running sentences that's
> conceptually and physically closer to the non-English prototype
If you want the properties to be code or a formal notation, you better
get a proper, formal definition first. Right now, they are informal
annotations, so keywords consisting of non-made-up words seem to be the
right thing for me.
> be
> forced into standards that don't even apply to the running text, where
> non-English words and contractions often appear in the middle of
> sentences?
I'm not arguing that you should stick to any rules, nor that you are not
paying attention to tradition, or something like that. I'm saying that
I think that cryptic keywords aren't the right thing to do in this
particular case, and why. Even if we have other cases of cryptic
keywords or such, this doesn't mean that's the golden standard to
follow.
- References:
- Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.