This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [wwwdocs] Nits in gcc-4.6/changes.html
- From: "Nicola Pero" <nicola dot pero at meta-innovation dot com>
- To: "IainS" <developer at sandoe-acoustics dot co dot uk>
- Cc: "Gerald Pfeifer" <gerald at pfeifer dot com>, "Rainer Orth" <ro at cebitec dot uni-bielefeld dot de>, "Ian Lance Taylor" <iant at google dot com>, "Hariharan Sandanagobalane" <hariharans at picochip dot com>, "Andreas Krebbel" <krebbel at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 23:21:35 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] Nits in gcc-4.6/changes.html
- References: <ydd8vy06ha9.fsf@manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1102022313530.14698@gerinyyl.fvgr> <1296764419.800320155@192.168.4.58> <7B0219EA-B2F1-428E-941C-3A9A84D3B305@sandoe-acoustics.co.uk>
>>> * Objective-C and Objective-C++:
>>>
>>> Most features are available in both languages. Rather than stating
>>> this over and over again, which makes the text repetetive and
>>> boring,
>>> state it once up-front and only point out exceptions?
>>
>> Nicola, what do you think?
>
> Sure, sounds great.
To clarify, I (personally) would simply replace all the statements
> The Objective-C 2.0 dot-syntax is now supported both in Objective-C
> and Objective-C++.
with the shorter, more readable and less boring --
> The Objective-C 2.0 dot-syntax is now supported.
It's obvious that it applies to both Objective-C and Objective-C++,
because the section is entitled "Objective-C and Objective-C++" ;-)
(the only exception is fast enumeration, which is not implemented
in Objective-C++, and where we could leave the text as it is)
I don't mind other solutions though. Feel free to make it more readable.
> for the last two entries one could use "Objective-C family" or
> Objective-C* (if the latter is allowable in GCC docs.)
> comments?
But I would argue against using "Objective-C*" because I find it
unusual and cryptic. The confused reader won't find it explained
in Wikipedia either. I'd actually suggest we avoid it in comments
and documentation as a matter of policy. If not, we should have it
clearly explained somewhere easy to find. ;-)
Thanks