This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [using gcc book] ch3.8 options to request or suppress warnings


Chris Devers <cdevers@pobox.com> writes:

> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Jim Wilson wrote:
> 
> > It is probably better to use enumerated type, and we should probably
> > convert uses of enumeral in the source code to be enumerated instead.
> 
> Okay, so should I make any documentation changes at this time? I'm
> assuming that I would be getting ahead of things to do a search & replace
> on, say
> 
>   s/ENUMERAL_TYPE/ENUMERATED_TYPE/
> 
> since that's clearly being used as meaningful code in the text.
> 
> On the other hand, would it be fair to replace the instances of the term
> 'enumeral' in the prose? I count seven such references: four use the term
> "enumeral type", two use "enumeral value", and one uses "enumeral class."
> 
> It looks like it may be safe to change them all, if I understand you
> correctly and people will know that the terms are semi-interchangeable.

Yes, I would suggest 'enumerated type' and 'enumeration value'
instead, as they are more standard terms and so better-known to the user.

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]