**-036 Punctuation changes

[jensmaurer]

Replace behavior by behaviour Replace e.g., by e.g. Replace NOTE 1: by NOTE 1 (no colon) Replace EXAMPLE 1: by EXAMPLE 1 (no colon) Replace Table 1: by Table 1 — (colon is replaced by an em dash)

[jensmaurer]

Why British spelling in exactly one place?

"e.g." comma should be double-checked with a dictionary (or the Directives, if they say something here); there is good rationale that "e.g." is a sentence (albeit in Latin) and thus should use a comma afterwards.

[tkoeppe]

NOTE and EXAMPLE should already be correct.

[tkoeppe]

Tables (and figures) are fixable. I'm not sure what to do about the spelling; I thought American English was OK?

[tkoeppe]

The house style talks about "e.g." etc.: https://www.iso.org/ISO-house-style.html#iso-hs-s-text-r-a-eg

[JohelEGP]

Why British spelling in exactly one place?

The house style also says "ISO documents use Oxford English spelling, which is British spelling [...]" (https://www.iso.org/ISO-house-style.html#iso-hs-s-text-r-spelling). And searching for "behavior" in the linked online dictionary returns an entry for "behaviour" (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/behaviour?q=behavior).

[jensmaurer]

Yes, ISO wants us to use British spelling throughout (except use -ize instead of -ise), but we've always pushed back on that on the grounds that the programming language we describe uses American spelling for their contents, and it would be odd to describe an American-spelled facility using British spelling next to it.

I though there was a rather punchy example in the standard library, but I can't find it right now. @zygoloid , do you remember?

[jensmaurer]

The part about commas after "e.g." and "i.e." seems to be a difference between American and British English (the former preferring the comma, the latter not so much):

https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/articles/i-e-versus-e-g/

I’ve also been told that the commas are used less frequently in Britain ...

I do want to point out that the "house style" is not obviously binding (in contrast to the Directives), even though ISO/CS sometimes seems to give the impression that it is.

[tkoeppe]

I'm happy to push back on this.

[tkoeppe]

For C++17 DIS we had responded:

The document defines many terms that must be spelled the same way by conforming implementations and by users of those implementations, and these terms use US English spelling. It would be confusing for the document text to use UK English spelling when describing these terms.