[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D108502: [libc++][doc] Cleanup, normalize, and update projects status docs

[Kent Ross via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

mumbleskates added a comment.

The specific project that was completed was [cmp.result], the only thing on the list that is marked as complete so far. I can change the differential description to name it specifically. In my head this easily falls into the same bucket as cleaning up formatting, as it is correcting trivial information that is currently wrong.



================
Comment at: libcxx/docs/Status/Cxx14.rst:1
-.. _cxx14-status:
-
-================================
-libc++ C++14 Status
-================================
-
-.. include:: ../Helpers/Styles.rst
-
-.. contents::
-   :local:
-
-
-Overview
-================================
-
-In April 2013, the C++ standard committee approved the draft for the next version of the C++ standard, initially known as "C++1y".
-
-The draft standard includes papers and issues that were voted on at the previous three meetings (Kona, Portland, and Bristol).
-
-In August 2014, this draft was approved by ISO as C++14.
-
-This page shows the status of libc++; the status of clang's support of the language features is `here <https://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html#cxx14>`__.
-
-The groups that have contributed papers:
-
--  CWG - Core Language Working group
--  LWG - Library working group
--  SG1 - Study group #1 (Concurrency working group)
-
-
-.. _paper-status-cxx14:
-
-Paper Status
-====================================
-
-.. csv-table::
-   :file: Cxx14Papers.csv
-   :header-rows: 1
-   :widths: auto
-
-
-.. _issues-status-cxx14:
-
-Library Working Group Issues Status
-====================================
-
-.. csv-table::
-   :file: Cxx14Issues.csv
-   :header-rows: 1
-   :widths: auto
-
-Last Updated: 25-Mar-2014
+.. _cxx14-status:
+
----------------
Mordante wrote:
> What has changed in this file?
Line endings were CRLF, out of line with other files, for Cxx14-2b and Styles; I can revert all these if that's preferable. Notably this does not affect git blame.


================
Comment at: libcxx/docs/Status/FormatIssues.csv:3
 `P0645 <https://wg21.link/P0645>`_,"Text Formatting",Mark de Wever,,|partial|,
-`P1652 <https://wg21.link/P1652>`_,"Printf corner cases in std::format",Mark de Wever,`D103433 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D103433>`__,Review,
-`P1892 <https://wg21.link/P1892>`_,"Extended locale-specific presentation specifiers for std::format",Mark de Wever,`D103368 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D103368>`__,Review,
----------------
Mordante wrote:
> Please don't change the status of these entries. There's a patch in review. Unlike the `Status/Cxx*.rst` pages these are really intended for the developers working on these features. Changing the status makes it harder for me to keep track of the real status.
Ack


================
Comment at: libcxx/docs/Status/RangesPaper.csv:8
 | `ranges::less_equal <https://llvm.org/D100429>`_
-| `ranges::greater_equal <https://llvm.org/D100429>`_",None,Zoe Carver,✅
+| `ranges::greater_equal <https://llvm.org/D100429>`_",None,Zoe Carver,|Complete|
 `[readable.traits] <http://wg21.link/readable.traits>`_,"| `indirectly_readable_traits <https://llvm.org/D99461>`_
----------------
Mordante wrote:
> Why change this? I'm not working on Ranges so don't have a strong opinion. But I assume the authors picked the checkmark since they prefer it that way.
Accessibility; consistency; ability to enter it in without hunting down another check mark and copy-pasting it.

Assuming we want to keep the check marks for some reason it's better to create an entry in Styles.rst like `.. |checkmark| unicode:: U+2705` and use that.

This is mostly cjdb's domain, I'll leave it up to him whether he prefers text or a check mark.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D108502/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D108502