From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm1-x342.google.com (mail-wm1-x342.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::342]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26523394741A for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 14:47:14 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 26523394741A Received: by mail-wm1-x342.google.com with SMTP id b79so1432691wmb.4 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 07:47:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/XDEhI2ykTiCgkqkJju96goL1xvWQTp4bavAxLT/Zug=; b=Zr19WJhNHcNbFohjoJPuOBPc8j75pZOe15t0u42DcZgREDPhh2Ch8DONWbTV+XpTjz zj+iRgR/gPTHDM21GTwBqab3qA4nLOaQKdPSKUdCnfmei95ZPUCViWUpHmRkhYZvP7aX mEJI4T3tCVWFCXO2W2J8UtUzRnIWg4AbG9l859w6UMCXJhhQ9tXNOjWCHSMoKiZNeGvf 4PGDA1Kvjr3EJdx1LpD2jyR8FMld5VxvMSJi+RF4aEadsitAmSzcMQHv6hng0XCbKrzA L8eBVOMl0Xg+MbH2B0lF9L+YUyvzJikbnPq7qsbxMkmVEEAYYh37b+Na4u8CtZJFLjo5 R2og== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530L2lGVYVbus2/uy8eSVLthv3Rg9YRWcSN/s62t93P/x2pnPsxr dXwF9QlNFRAG9+z6i5QAf8cD0iNTtj4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzSrhjqbP3ynjSYFsyQu7+JHlbtrhpOW711sujkHXTZrFfzZZDHCCTMR4drZhtXzLosRLOGNg== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:4455:: with SMTP id r82mr2004231wma.60.1601304432797; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 07:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.143] ([170.253.60.68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u66sm1541595wme.12.2020.09.28.07.47.11 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Sep 2020 07:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] system_data_types.7: Document size_t To: "G. Branden Robinson" Cc: Dave Martin , mtk.manpages@gmail.com, linux-man@vger.kernel.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <20200918112755.21428-1-colomar.6.4.3@gmail.com> <20200918112755.21428-2-colomar.6.4.3@gmail.com> <20200928134122.GG6642@arm.com> <8ce3d63c-445f-827b-a49a-914e8dd622d4@gmail.com> <20200928135506.2wsf3cwvkkbreqa3@localhost.localdomain> From: Alejandro Colomar Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 16:47:11 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200928135506.2wsf3cwvkkbreqa3@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT, FREEMAIL_FROM, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 14:47:15 -0000 Hi Branden, On 2020-09-28 15:55, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Hi, Alex! > > At 2020-09-28T15:48:14+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: >>> Where does this arbitrary-looking list of headers come from? >> >> There are two parts: left to the ';', and right to the ';'. >> >> Left: The canonical C standard header, and the canonical POSIX header, >> in alphabetical order. >> >> Right: All other headers that shall define the header, according to >> either the C or the POSIX standards, in alphabetical order. > > That's not a bad scheme but it is not inferable from the current man > page text; I almost commented on the inconsistency in one of my earlier > messages but deemed it out of scope. Please document it, perhaps in an > introductory paragraph at the top of the Description section. > > Or, you could spend a word to do the same work: > > gid_t Include: . Alternatively, , , > , , , , or . > > Regards, > Branden > Thanks! We talked about it. I wasn't convinced by my scheme, but we couldn't come up with a better solution, so we kept that. For the readers, it wasn't clear, but for the developers of the page, I wrote a comment at the beginning of the page, which I hope was clear enough: .\" Layout: .\" A list of type names (the struct/union keyword will be omitted). .\" Each entry will have the following parts: .\" * Include .\" The headers will be in the following order: .\" 1) The main header that shall define the type .\" according to the C Standard, .\" and .\" the main header that shall define the type .\" according to POSIX, .\" in alphabetical order. .\" ; .\" 2) All other headers that shall define the type .\" as described in the previous header(s) .\" according to the C Standard or POSIX, .\" in alphabetical order. .\" *) All headers that define the type .\" *if* the type is not defined by C nor POSIX, .\" in alphabetical order. .\" .\" * Definition (no "Definition" header) .\" Only struct/union types will have definition; .\" typedefs will remain opaque. .\" .\" * Description (no "Description" header) .\" A few lines describing the type. .\" .\" * Conforming to .\" Format: CXY and later; POSIX.1-XXXX and later. .\" Forget about pre-C99 C standards (i.e., C89/C90) .\" .\" * Notes (optional) .\" .\" * See also But I like very much your "Alternatively, " wording. I'll use it! Thanks, Alex