This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v12 5/6] Documentation to the above changes (bug 10871).
On 01/24/2018 04:45 PM, Rafal Luzynski wrote:
> I have received a comment from Gnulib maintainers that this
> documentation is too ambiguous because does not define which
> date format should be considered "full" and which should be
> considered "month standalone". I have explained that the date
> is "full" if there is a day number and a month name (the week
> day and the year number are optional) and the month name is
> "standalone" when there is no day number (it may be just the
> month name alone, or if a year number is added this still counts
> as standalone). It has been requested to add this definition
> to the glibc documentation.
>
> But, OTOH, I can't guarantee this works the same in all languages
> which have this issue. Maybe we should add a phrase "in many
> languages" or "in most of the languages which need this feature"?
>
> Any suggestions how to fix the documentation? Does anybody want
> to commit immediately?
I see no immediate need to rush into documenting this any more than
is currently documented. Please reflect on the comments provided
by the gnulib maintainers and see if any ideas come to mind.
In my experience it is sometimes best to use examples here to define
what you mean. So instead of writing completely generic text, we
use Polish as an example and describe which is full and standalone
using the example.
--
Cheers,
Carlos.