Geoff,
Also, I'd change "Such symbols are not shown as CX shaded." to "Such
symbols, except those appearing in the 'Numerical Limits' subsection,
are not shown as CX shaded."
-Hal
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 15:14 -0400, Hal Finkel wrote:
> Geoff,
>
> I appreciate your reply, and I had not noticed that text at the
> beginning of the section. On the other hand, I still think it would be
> useful to include the CX shading on the mentioned entries. The C
> standard refers to limits.h as "Sizes of integer types", and I think
> where there is overlap, namely in the "Numerical Limits" subsection of
> the POSIX description, the shading would be appropriate.
>
> Thank you,
> Hal
>
> On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 17:01 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote:
> > Hal Finkel <half@halssoftware.com> wrote, on 19 May 2009:
> > >
> > > @ page 279 line 0 section <limits.h> comment {279}
> > >
> > > Problem:
> > >
> > > Edition of Specification (Year): 2008
> > >
> > > Defect code : 1. Error
> > >
> > > LONG_BIT, WORD_BIT and SSIZE_MAX are missing the CX shading.
> > >
> > > Action:
> > >
> > > Add the CX shading to LONG_BIT (pg. 278 lines 9218-9220), WORD_BIT
> > > (pg. 279 lines 9260-9262) and SSIZE_MAX (pg. 279 lines 9242-9244).
> >
> > See the <limits.h> introduction at page 268 line 8756:
> >
> > Many of the symbols listed here are not defined by the ISO/IEC
> > 9899: 1999 standard. Such symbols are not shown as CX shaded.
> >
> > The only uses of CX on the <limits.h> page are to show cases where
> > POSIX differs from C99 on the allowed values of some macros such as
> > CHAR_BIT and INT_MAX.
> >
>
|