Skip to content

Conversation

@eemeli
Copy link
Collaborator

@eemeli eemeli commented Feb 21, 2025

Fixes #1034

Mostly the changes are straightforward and completely editorial, though I did opt to make a few further changes as I went:

  • Defining also digit size option, which we effectively already use as a term
  • Some of the explanatory text about :number select added in Clarify option literalness details #1027 is moved from Resolved Values to Number Selection
  • Harmonize the introductions to each function's options and make sure that each required option is indeed REQUIRED.

I left out a definition of resolved options that I think we probably ought to add as well, but thought that the above could be done as a first step.

Copy link
Member

@aphillips aphillips left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Great start.

> [!NOTE]
> Such information is irrelevant for _resolved values_ not used as the value of an _option_.
> `select` be set with a _literal_ _option value_ (`plural`, `ordinal`, or `exact`).
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like this change here.

When a _literal_ is used as an _operand_
or on the right-hand side of an _option_,
When a _literal_ is used as an _operand_ or as an _option value_,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a good improvement too!

@aphillips aphillips added specification Issue affects the specification LDML47 labels Feb 21, 2025
Co-authored-by: Addison Phillips <[email protected]>
@eemeli eemeli requested a review from aphillips February 21, 2025 18:13
> [!NOTE]
> Such information is irrelevant for _resolved values_ not used as the value of an _option_.
> `select` be set with a _literal_ _option value_ (`plural`, `ordinal`, or `exact`).
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm okay with removing the reason why we do this. We should someplace develop a companion piece that talks about some of these reasons, but they don't need to be in the spec

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's not removed: it's moved to number selection.

@aphillips aphillips added the fast-track Editorial change permitted to use fast-track merge rules label Feb 21, 2025
@aphillips
Copy link
Member

Meets fast-track. Merging.

@aphillips aphillips merged commit acc5969 into main Feb 21, 2025
1 check passed
@aphillips aphillips deleted the option-values branch February 21, 2025 18:55
@eemeli eemeli added this to the LDML 47 milestone Jul 23, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

fast-track Editorial change permitted to use fast-track merge rules specification Issue affects the specification

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Make _option value_ a term

4 participants