This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of NAD Editorial status.

424. normative notes

Section: [structure.summary] Status: NAD Editorial Submitter: Martin Sebor Opened: 2003-09-18 Last modified: 2016-11-12

Priority: Not Prioritized

View all issues with NAD Editorial status.


The text in, p1 says:
"Paragraphs labelled "Note(s):" or "Example(s):" are informative, other paragraphs are normative."
The library section makes heavy use of paragraphs labeled "Notes(s)," some of which are clearly intended to be normative (see list 1), while some others are not (see list 2). There are also those where the intent is not so clear (see list 3).

List 1 -- Examples of (presumably) normative Notes: [allocator.members], p3, [allocator.members], p10, [string.cons], p11, [locale.cons], p11, [deque.modifiers], p2,
27.8.9 [alg.min.max], p3,
28.4.6 [complex.ops], p15, [streambuf.virt.get], p7.

List 2 -- Examples of (presumably) informative Notes: [new.delete.placement], p3, [string.replace], p14, [locale.codecvt.virtuals], p3,
27.6.5 [alg.foreach], p4,
28.4.5 [complex.member.ops], p1, [], p6.

List 3 -- Examples of Notes that are not clearly either normative or informative: [locale.cons], p8, [locale.statics], p6, [streambuf.virt.put], p4.

None of these lists is meant to be exhaustive.

[Definitely a real problem. The big problem is there's material that doesn't quite fit any of the named paragraph categories (e.g. Effects). Either we need a new kind of named paragraph, or we need to put more material in unnamed paragraphs jsut after the signature. We need to talk to the Project Editor about how to do this. ]

[ Bellevue: Specifics of list 3: First 2 items correct in std (, Third item should be non-normative (, which Pete will handle editorially. ]

[ post San Francisco: Howard: reopened, needs attention. ]

[Pete: I changed the paragraphs marked "Note" and "Notes" to use "Remark" and "Remarks". Fixed as editorial. This change has been in the WD since the post-Redmond mailing, in 2004. Recommend NAD.]

[ Batavia: We feel that the references in List 2 above should be changed from Remarks to Notes. We also feel that those items in List 3 need to be double checked for the same change. Alan and Pete to review. ]

[ Batavia (2009-05): ]

A spot-check of List 2 suggests the issue is still relevant, and a review of List 3 still seems called-for.

Move to NAD Editorial.

Proposed resolution: