Hi Michael, On 1/8/21 11:50 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On 1/7/21 6:04 PM, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote: >> Hi Michael, >> >> [[ >> SYNOPSIS >> #include <stdlib.h> >> >> int clearenv(void); >> >> Feature Test Macro Requirements for glibc (see fea‐ >> ture_test_macros(7)): >> >> clearenv(): >> /* Glibc since 2.19: */ _DEFAULT_SOURCE >> || /* Glibc <= 2.19: */ _SVID_SOURCE || _BSD_SOURCE >> >> ]] >> >> [[ >> SYNOPSIS >> #include <time.h> >> >> int dysize(int year); >> >> Feature Test Macro Requirements for glibc (see fea‐ >> ture_test_macros(7)): >> >> dysize(): >> Since glibc 2.19: >> _DEFAULT_SOURCE >> Glibc 2.19 and earlier: >> _BSD_SOURCE || _SVID_SOURCE >> >> ]] >> >> Which one do you prefer? > > Probably the latter, since it is a little easier to read. > > The former form has crept in as a result of my attempts > to keep the FTM info somewhat compact. See, for example: > > chroot(): > Since glibc 2.2.2: > _XOPEN_SOURCE && ! (_POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200112L) > || /* Since glibc 2.20: */ _DEFAULT_SOURCE > || /* Glibc <= 2.19: */ _BSD_SOURCE > Before glibc 2.2.2: > none > > > waitid(): > Since glibc 2.26: > _XOPEN_SOURCE >= 500 || _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200809L > Glibc 2.25 and earlier: > _XOPEN_SOURCE > || /* Since glibc 2.12: */ _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200809L > || /* Glibc <= 2.19: */ _BSD_SOURCE > > The latter could be rewritten (I hope I got the expansion right) > as: > waitid(): > Since glibc 2.26: > _XOPEN_SOURCE >= 500 || _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200809L > Glibc 2.20 to 2.25 > _XOPEN_SOURCE || _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200809L > Glibc 2.12 to 2.19 > _XOPEN_SOURCE || _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200809L > || _BSD_SOURCE > Glibc 2.11 and earlier: > _XOPEN_SOURCE || _BSD_SOURCE > > > That's more verbose, but perhaps also easier to read, now that > I look at it. > > I'm not sure whether you are thinking of doing some global edit, > but if you are, perhaps we need to discuss this more. Well, I'm not thinking of a global edit right now (we've had enough of those for now I think :), but more as something to think for the future. So yes, a discussion about if we prefer to have a single way of expressing FTM or if there are times when the other way is better would be good. Your thoughts? Thanks, Alex > > Thanks, > > Michael > > -- Alejandro Colomar Linux man-pages comaintainer; https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/
