On 04/22/2016 09:45 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 04/22/2016 10:42 AM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
Would you expect people to conform to the abridged version or the
full standard? If the full standard, then publishing an abridged
version is not a good idea, it will just cause confusion. Let the
full standard be the rule, make people read it, and if they didn't
bother that's their problem.
I agree; let's not have two documents that can conflict or get out of
sync with each other, unless you can figure out how to extract the
abridged document automatically from the full version.
Hmm. As for being out-of-date, I'd say the official document is guilty:
it talks about how we can use C89 now that it is prevalent enough. Now
that I've looked at it again after many years, the document really does
seem poorly organized and contains lots of irrelevant information (a
huge table of long option names?)
I think if we limit our local document to just the basics (and maybe
call it a Getting Started guide rather than an abridged form of the GNU
coding standards), there's little danger of it going out of date, and I
still think having it would improve our documentation.
Bernd
