style.9: update C99 commentary
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by emaste on Feb 12 2020, 2:36 PM.

Details

Reviewers

imp
cem
jhb
kib

Group Reviewers

manpages

Commits

rS358314: style.9: update C99 commentary

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

Repository

rS FreeBSD src repository - subversion

Lint

Lint Not Applicable

Unit

Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

emaste created this revision.Feb 12 2020, 2:36 PM

kib accepted this revision.Feb 12 2020, 2:56 PM

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Feb 12 2020, 2:56 PM

cem accepted this revision.Feb 12 2020, 3:19 PM

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

share/man/man9/style.9
305 ↗	(On Diff #68187)	you changed it below, but not here. why?

emaste added inline comments.Feb 12 2020, 10:17 PM

share/man/man9/style.9
305 ↗	(On Diff #68187)	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.