[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] An experimental GNU Assembly
From: |
Thien-Thi Nguyen |
Subject: |
Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] An experimental GNU Assembly |
Date: |
Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:26:43 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
() Richard Stallman <address@hidden>
() Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:18:58 -0500
TITLE / SHORT-PARAGRAPH
I don't see any harm in including these in ChangeLog entries too.
ENTRY-CONVENTIONS describe entry-specific abbreviations or
implicitly shared descriptions. For example, instead of this:
No harm in that either, but I usually deal with the same situation
by writing "Likewise" or just putting several functions into
one line. Instead of
Here, all C files now #include "header.h";
"U" means "Use ‘func’".
* foo.c (foo): U.
* bar.c (bar, baz): U.
(qux): Update call to ‘bar’.
* doc.texi (ref): Mention "header.h".
I used to write it like this:
* header.h: Include in all C files.
* foo.c (foo): Use `func’.
* bar.c (bar, baz): Likewise.
(qux): Update call to ‘bar’.
* doc.texi (ref): Mention "header.h".
I think that is clearer in practice but I don't object to the other
way. This text is meant for humans to read, not for automatic
parsing. The only crucial thing is to list the functions that are
changed, to make searching for them reliable.
Thanks for the review. I believe i've addressed your points in
another message, and redirected to another list (CC updated).