Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

style.9: update C99 commentary
AcceptedPublic

Authored by emaste on Wed, Feb 12, 2:36 PM.

Details

Reviewers
imp
cem
jhb
kib
Summary

Make style.9 read as a current statement about C99 preferences, rather than a description of ongoing changes to our preferred style. Also use the short form "C99" on the 2nd and later instances rather than repeating the unwieldy ISO/IEC 9899:1999 ("ISO C99").

MFC after: 1 month

Diff Detail

Lint
Lint Skipped
Unit
Unit Tests Skipped

Event Timeline

emaste created this revision.Wed, Feb 12, 2:36 PM
kib accepted this revision.Wed, Feb 12, 2:56 PM
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Wed, Feb 12, 2:56 PM
cem accepted this revision.Wed, Feb 12, 3:19 PM
imp accepted this revision.Wed, Feb 12, 10:05 PM

I think the .St -isoC-99 is better than a raw C99. Otherwise, I like the prefers.

share/man/man9/style.9
305

you changed it below, but not here. why?

emaste added inline comments.Wed, Feb 12, 10:17 PM
share/man/man9/style.9
305

I believe it's important to include the full name of the standard at least once, but it gets excessive to repeat the whole thing every time. .St -isoC-99 renders as ISO/IEC 9899:1999 ("ISO C99"); IMO it's completely reasonable to use the short form after it's introduced.

Maybe the subsequent ones should be ISO C99 though, matching the parenthetical short form.

jhb accepted this revision.Wed, Feb 12, 10:23 PM

I vote for using the parenthetical.

imp added a comment.Wed, Feb 12, 11:16 PM

I'm cool with the parenthetical form.