From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 38228 invoked by alias); 20 May 2017 06:05:18 -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 29919 invoked by uid 89); 20 May 2017 06:04:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit X-HELO: smtp.pacific.net Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] manual: Create empty placeholder macros for @standards. To: Zack Weinberg , libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <20170519093353.6158-1-ricaljasan@pacific.net> <20170519093353.6158-3-ricaljasan@pacific.net> Cc: Joseph Myers , Carlos O'Donell , Michael Kerrisk From: Rical Jasan Message-ID: Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 06:05:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2017-05/txt/msg00619.txt.bz2 On 05/19/2017 02:02 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: > On 05/19/2017 05:33 AM, Rical Jasan wrote: >> Header and standards annotations are slated for standardization, >> including being rendered in the description of functions, variables, >> etc. (elements), and eventually required. This commit adds @standards >> dummy macros so we can convert all existing annotations to the new >> framework while maintaining the rendered status quo. >> >> There needs to be a way to provide separate annotations for lists of >> @*x elements, where a common description is shared. The @standardsx >> macro fills this role by accepting an additional parameter: the name >> of the annotated element. >> >> * manual/macros.texi (@standards): New macro. Provide >> placeholder for header and standards annotations. >> (@standardsx): New macro. Likewise, for lists of @*x >> elements. > > This is OK. Please go ahead and check it in. Thank you for acknowledging you think this is approach is acceptable, but I am going to defer committing for now in lieu of the higher level discussion of @standards in general. Rical