For convenience, the relevant rule is listed (1.3/2):

"Terms that are used only in a small portion of this International
Standard are defined where they are used and italicized where they are
defined."

Greg Herlihy wrote:
>
> According to    1.3/2, only those terms that are used "in a small
> portion" of the Standard are italicized

An argument could be: what portion is a small one? How to calculate the
portion?

I found that in N2135 "fundamental type(s)" is used in chapter 3, 5, 7,
8, 18 and 20 (6 chapters), "compund type(s)" only in 3, 14 and 20 (3
chapters). Totally 30 chapters are there, and the proportions will be
6/30 (20%) and 3/30 (10%) respectively. Then you mean 20% is not "a
small portion" while 10% is? Maybe, but I don't know because the
standard says nothing about this.

We can see that, in fact, the restriction "only in a small portion" is
not operable and thus insignificant.

> To take an analogous example, the term "class" appears throughout the
> Standard (and even has an entire chapter of its own). But at no point
> is the term "class" italicized because it is being "introduced" - nor
> is "class" italicized even when it is being defined (in the first
> sentence of Chapter 9).

A contrary example is the term "object". It is really used throughout
the entire standard (i.e. surely not a small portion), but it is
italicized where it is defined (1.8/1) or even where not (3/1).

> and only when the term is
> being defined (which may not necessarily be the first time it appears
> in the text).

It's true. This is what the 1.3/2 says exactly.

Now I can accept that "fundamental types" I mentioned shall not be
italicized since it's not defined here. But why "compound" is
italicized? The definition of compound type is not here, too.

In the same paragraph, "object" is neither defined here nor the first
occurence, but it is italicized. Why? The same to many other terms.

-----

The standard using italics for terms does not follow 1.3/2 firmly. Both
the 1.3/2 rule and wether the corresponding terms are italicized or not
need a revision, I think.


---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]

===================================== MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
 Forwarded to the C++ committee for consideration.


===================================== END OF MODERATOR'S COMMENT
In chapter 3, paragraph 1, the last sentence says:

"Finally, this clause presents the fundamental types of the language
and lists the ways of constructing compound types from these."

The term "fundamental types" appears in the text for the first time,
the same as "compound types". "fundamental" should also be in italics
since "compound" is.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]

whyglinux wrote:
> ===================================== MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
>  Forwarded to the C++ committee for consideration.
>
>
> ===================================== END OF MODERATOR'S COMMENT
> In chapter 3, paragraph 1, the last sentence says:
>
> "Finally, this clause presents the fundamental types of the language
> and lists the ways of constructing compound types from these."
>
> The term "fundamental types" appears in the text for the first time,
> the same as "compound types". "fundamental" should also be in italics
> since "compound" is.
>

Noted, will be fixed in an upcoming draft.

--

 -- Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com)
Author of "The Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and
Reference." (www.petebecker.com/tr1book)

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 01:16:21 CST, whyglinux wrote:

>In chapter 3, paragraph 1, the last sentence says:
>
>"Finally, this clause presents the fundamental types of the language
>and lists the ways of constructing compound types from these."
>
>The term "fundamental types" appears in the text for the first time,
>the same as "compound types". "fundamental" should also be in italics
>since "compound" is.

I haven't checked if they are really first-time occurrences, but
wouldn't this be an editorial fix, anyway?

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]

this.is.invalid@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 01:16:21 CST, whyglinux wrote:
>
> >In chapter 3, paragraph 1, the last sentence says:
> >
> >"Finally, this clause presents the fundamental types of the language
> >and lists the ways of constructing compound types from these."
> >
> >The term "fundamental types" appears in the text for the first time,
> >the same as "compound types". "fundamental" should also be in italics
> >since "compound" is.

According to    1.3/2, only those terms that are used "in a small
portion" of the Standard are italicized - and only when the term is
being defined (which may not necessarily be the first time it appears
in the text). So the arguments against italicizing "fundamental" would
be two-fold, namely that a) that the term "fundamental type" is not
localized to a small portion of the Standard and b) the term is defined
somewhere else anyway. In fact, since the Standard devotes an entire
section to fundamental types (   3.9.1), both arguments would seem to be
correct.

To take an analogous example, the term "class" appears throughout the
Standard (and even has an entire chapter of its own). But at no point
is the term "class" italicized because it is being "introduced" - nor
is "class" italicized even when it is being defined (in the first
sentence of Chapter 9).

Greg


---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]