Rename the ".general" rules #2133
Open
+22
−22
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The "general" suffix seemed too generic to me, and also didn't quite fit with some of the style in the rest of the grammar. Some of these are difficult to come up with good names for, and I'm not entirely happy with this. My thinking is: - `.intro` is for informative introductions to a section. My intention is that every normative rule is testable. However, many of these `.intro` rules define terms, and I think those should possibly be normative (like [ISO/IEC Directives](https://www.iso.org/sites/directives/current/part2/index.xhtml#_idTextAnchor212)). I would like to rethink how `.intro` works. I appreciate having introductions that are more generalized, but it is often very difficult to introduce a section without defining some terms first. I would also like to come up with a better strategy of "this is a testable rule" versus "this rule defines a term, but that by isn't testable". - Switched some of these to be more specific words tailored to their context. - Used `.def` for some of these that *define* a thing. `.def` is used in a variety of other places. We have not standardized on it, and I'm not sure it is working in a way that is clear (is it defining a term? behavior? rule? general principle?). I think this is being used in ways that are inconsistent, and would like to figure out something better.
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The "general" suffix seemed too generic to me, and also didn't quite fit with some of the style in the rest of the grammar.
Some of these are difficult to come up with good names for, and I'm not entirely happy with this. My thinking is:
.introis for informative introductions to a section. My intention is that every normative rule is testable. However, many of these.introrules define terms, and I think those should possibly be normative (like ISO/IEC Directives).I would like to rethink how
.introworks. I appreciate having introductions that are more generalized, but it is often very difficult to introduce a section without defining some terms first.I would also like to come up with a better strategy of "this is a testable rule" versus "this rule defines a term, but that by isn't testable".
Switched some of these to be more specific words tailored to their context.
Used
.deffor some of these that define a thing..defis used in a variety of other places. We have not standardized on it, and I'm not sure it is working in a way that is clear (is it defining a term? behavior? rule? general principle?).I think this is being used in ways that are inconsistent, and would like to figure out something better.