Automatically collect abbreviations from generated DocDescs#4363
Automatically collect abbreviations from generated DocDescs#4363sarrasoussia wants to merge 85 commits intomainfrom
DocDescs#4363Conversation
sarrasoussia
requested review from
JacquesCarette,
balacij,
bmaclach,
cd155,
samm82 and
smiths
as code owners
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
| mis = commonIdeaWithDict "mis" (fterms compoundPhrase moduleInterface specification) "MIS" [softEng] | ||
| mg = commonIdeaWithDict "mg" (fterms compoundPhrase module_ guide) "MG" [softEng] | ||
| typUnc = commonIdeaWithDict "typUnc" (cn' "typical uncertainty") "Uncert." [softEng] | ||
| typUnc = commonIdeaWithDict "typUnc" (cnIES "typical uncertainty") "Uncert." [softEng] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be in a separate PR.
| assumpBC = cic "assumpBC" boundaryConditionsDesc "boundaryConditions" Doc.assumpDom | ||
| assumpRT = cic "assumpRT" responseTypeDesc "responseType" Doc.assumpDom | ||
| assumpLDFC = cic "assumpLDFC" (ldfConstantDesc loadDF) "ldfConstant" Doc.assumpDom | ||
| assumpLDFC = cic "assumpLDFC" ldfConstantDesc "ldfConstant" Doc.assumpDom |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't remember why this was necessary, but I also don't see why ldfConstantDesc was parameterized about the "mainConcept". Good change, but separate PR.
|
|
||
| acronyms :: [CI] | ||
| acronyms = [oneD, twoD, assumption, dataDefn, genDefn, goalStmt, inModel, | ||
| physSyst, requirement, srs, refBy, refName, thModel, typUnc] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm a little bit surprised that this means that acronyms is dead code now. We should double-check the other case studies if their "acronyms" lists are used/unused. But, this is also a good reminder that minimal export lists are good for these.
| <tr> | ||
| <td>GD</td> | ||
| <td>General Definition</td> | ||
| </tr> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, it makes sense why this was added. We added a hack in this PR that forces some short-forms to appear in the ToAA. It happens that GlassBR has no GDs and so "GD" never appears at all (which makes sense). Future work.
sentence to be optional via `Maybe` rather than abusing `EmptyS`. Split off from #4363.
`Sentence`. Split off from #4363. This does not change much, but it is good, regardless.
`String` forms. Split off from #4363
`refByDom` and `refNameDom` are removed. Neither are really "domains."
Split off from #4363
| ldfConstantDesc = foldlSent [S "With", phrase reference, S "to", | ||
| refS assumpSV `sC` D.toSent (phraseNP (NP.the (value `of_` | ||
| mainConcept))), sParen (ch mainConcept) `S.is` D.toSent (phraseNP (a_ constant)) | ||
| loadDF))), sParen (short loadDF) `S.is` D.toSent (phraseNP (a_ constant)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good change? I'm not so sure. LDF is actually meant to be a variable here, not an acronym. So rendering it in math mode is appropriate (see the later stable diff that makes it plain text).
Why was it changed? Operational purposes to avoid stable/ changes. Because without the reference to LDF as an acronym here, LDF won't be picked up as being a referenced acronym, and hence won't appear in the ToAA otherwise (as it currently does).
That being said, within the symbol is reference to the acronym. Or is it that it reuses the acronym for LDF? It's the same to me. One is just known to be usable in "math" contexts and when appropriate, is shown in an italicized font.
Should LDF appear in the both the table of symbols and the ToAA? Should Symbol support carrying references to textual abbreviations/acronyms?
In GlassBR, GTF is in boh the ToS and the ToAA, so it does seem there was thought on this in the past, but I don't see anything on the issue tracker.
@smiths @JacquesCarette Do you have any thoughts on this?
4 participants
Closes #4299
Closes #1235
Builds on #4323
Builds on #4695
Builds on #4843