[lib] Parameter names in synopses
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
While we strive to keep the declaration in a synopsis the same as the one in an \itemdecl, we're inconsistent (at least) for copy/move constructors and copy/move assignment operators.
Personally, I feel that copy/move operations speak for themselves through the declaration and don't need a distracting parameter name in the synopsis, in particular if the function is defaulted or deleted. (We need one for the \itemdecl, of course, because we need to talk about the source of the copy/move.)
See #3230 for a specific case.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with the specific case in #3230, then inspect the related synopsis and \itemdecl declarations for copy/move constructors and assignment operators. Check which parameter names are inconsistent and apply one convention: omit distracting names in synopses while retaining names needed by \itemdecl entries.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- tex
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100