[too many to list] Index macros directly from definitions

[AlisdairM]

This commit uses the macro to index macro definitions directly from the header synopses where they are defined, thus removing the need for a separate indexing macro that can get out of sync.

This commit does NOT address function-like macros, or macros that use placemarker syntax in their naming.

White this PR might have been more easily reviewed as one commit for each file, it seems better to apply the changes consistently. all at once, so that any future edits have a consistent pattern to follow.

[jensmaurer]

White this PR might have been more easily reviewed as one commit for each file, it seems better to apply the changes consistently. all at once, ...

That is a non-sequitur. One commit for each file does not mean one pull request for each file, i.e. github provides for an environment where multiple commits can be naturally applied in an all-or-nothing fashion by grouping them into a single pull request.

[jensmaurer]

I support the general approach, but please split at least the large changes into separate commits (NOT separate pull requests), with a proper section label in each commit description.

[AlisdairM]

That is a non-sequitur. One commit for each file does not mean one pull request for each file, i.e. github provides for an environment where multiple commits can be naturally applied in an all-or-nothing fashion by grouping them into a single pull request.

I have broken up the PR into many more specific commits.

[AlisdairM]

All the requested changes should now be applied. Ready for re-review.

[jensmaurer]

Please typo-fix this commit description:

[support] Better index the many macros in the [support] clauses

"Not that there are additional edits in other clauses to ensure that
macrods are consistently indexed using only through \libmacro to
support future evolution of that LaTeX macro."

Not -> Note

macrods -> macros

"using only through" feels non-English to me.

[AlisdairM]

Again, latest push should have addressed all the open change requests.

[jensmaurer]

I've talked to @tkoeppe, and we agree that we'd prefer to see one commit per header. This means we can start the title of the respective commit with "[cerrno.syn]" or similar, which gives a nice scope to each commit.

I understand that sometimes, macros are referenced from various places (e.g. va_start), and you want to deal with all macros from a given header uniformly. I'd suggest you factor the "obvious" candidates such as [cerrno.syn] (that have no references to those macros elsewhere) as a first iteration step, and we can have a deeper look at the rest later.

[AlisdairM]

Could you confirm whether I hit all uses of a macro in multiple headers in a single commit, when resolving a header synopsis, or revisit with a separate commit or set of commits? You mention <cerrno> as having no references, but it is actually the most referenced single header due to cross-references to errno. Of course, there is every chance that I am adding too many errno cross-references too.

Could I land a smaller patch that adds the library macros, and just a few headers to get started? I expect to revisit this PR on Sunday otherwise.

[jensmaurer]

We'd hope there would be some headers with macros that are not mentioned elsewhere in the standard. If <cerrno> is not such a header, fine, let's leave for later.

So, the ask is to start with those headers whose macros are not mentioned elsewhere, and have commits with label [cblah.syn] and changes for that header only, as a starter. We can then have a look at the rest; maybe it's best to summarize those under [support] or so.

[AlisdairM]

I have reapplied the changes one header at a time, with the exception of the Annex D updates that I applied as one commit at the end; I have not applied any changes to [support] yet as that has many headers to update; I have removed all additional indexing of macros from headers that are not the immediate subject of a commit to the same .tex file.

I have also rebased onto main so this PR should apply cleanly.

[jensmaurer]

Ok, this looks like a very nice first step to me.

Could you please update the commit titles from "Better index the macros in this header" to "Improve indexing for macros" ? This betters the English, I think. :-)

Since this is a no-op as far as the actual text contents of the standard is concerned, I'd apply this soon afterwards. @tkoeppe , FYI.

[AlisdairM]

Commit messages should be updated now.

[jensmaurer]

@tkoeppe , this should be ready now.