Re: [PATCH v12 5/6] Documentation to the above changes (bug 10871).

[Rical Jasan <ricaljasan@pacific.net>]

On 01/14/2018 10:28 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 01/14/2018 07:42 PM, Rical Jasan wrote:
>> It seems odd not to have ABALTMON_*.  Unfortunately I didn't get to
>> reviewing this sooner, and I don't want to block this, and another
>> developer has OK'd it [1], but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents.
> I asked the same thing during the review, see:
> https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-01/msg00408.html
> 
> There is no reason we can't add it in the future.
> 
> Perhaps a note about this in the documentation might explain
> why the expected define is not present?

That would be fine with me.  I think it deserves a mention because the
feature is implemented, and I imagine anybody taking advantage of the
bugfix or using %OB, et al., will naturally be interested in, if not
looking for, the abbreviated equivalent.  Better to have complete
documentation that gets updated later than no documentation at all.

Should the full _NL_ABALTMON list be documented alongside ALTMON, or do
you think another paragraph in the ALTMON description is a sufficient
shim?  If ABALTMON is expected to be added in 2.28 because of how close
to the 2.27 release this went in, I'd prefer the latter, perhaps even
with a note that ABALTMON is expected to supersede the
currently-available _NL_ABALTMON, but if ABALTMON is intended to be
deferred until standardization, I think the former is more appropriate,
with no mention of ABALTMON.

Rical