From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28683 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2016 03:44:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 28669 invoked by uid 89); 25 Nov 2016 03:44:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=meet, settle X-HELO: mail.pacific.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] manual: Refactor header and standards annotations. To: Joseph Myers References: <20161123063807.14845-1-ricaljasan@pacific.net> <20161123063807.14845-2-ricaljasan@pacific.net> <52a4b7bf-3a5a-8194-a18a-6b523e12acad@pacific.net> Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Michael Kerrisk , "Carlos O'Donell" From: Rical Jasan Message-ID: <1230cb0d-b2e3-ab86-363b-c1bf56bca621@pacific.net> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 03:44:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Null-Tag: 881575abf1dccdaae24a24264858c489 X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg00910.txt.bz2 On 11/24/2016 05:17 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Rical Jasan wrote: > >> First, I was going to ask if there was a preference for whether >> summary.awk should be modified or if a new script was acceptable, and if >> so which language. To help make sense of things while working this out >> I used a Perl script for a scratchpad, which I could clean up for > > Building the manual already requires perl (to generate libm-err.texi) so > use of perl is not necessarily a problem. > >> Second, I expect we'll move away from @comment-based annotations to >> something more explicit/obvious, so I was avoiding enforcing a syntax >> until we settle on one. (Not that it's an argument against enforcing >> now.) For example, I'm already using new @vitem and @titem macros to > > My view is that when patches cause the manual to meet particular syntax > rules that help conversion to another form of annotations, they should > also make sure those rules are enforced so we don't regress before the > conversion. I'll whittle down what I've been using to the bare essentials and submit it with a v2 then. Practically, changing the @comments to something else should only result in modifying a couple regexes anyway. What should I do with summary.awk? Replace it or stick to syntax checking only? I've been calling mine check-stds.pl but it could become summary.pl. I suppose replacing summary.awk could always be done later, too. Rical