From fe6d91c913743ad0e613c49415dc0703574c8e76 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dan Beam Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2022 17:32:00 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] Fix feature check formatting i dunno if this is a google internal (g3doc) thing, but I don't see the existing syntax in https://www.markdownguide.org/extended-syntax/#tables --- docs/cpp/platforms/feature_checks.md | 11 +++-------- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/cpp/platforms/feature_checks.md b/docs/cpp/platforms/feature_checks.md index 6e4d0b8c..84199342 100644 --- a/docs/cpp/platforms/feature_checks.md +++ b/docs/cpp/platforms/feature_checks.md @@ -65,16 +65,11 @@ by explicitly listing all platforms where a given feature is available, or opt out by explicitly listing all platforms where a given feature is missing or broken. Either option has pros and cons: + | | opt-in | opt-out | | ---- | ------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | -| pros | Generally safe, and more likely | The compilation fails if a new | -: : to build on a new platform. : platform doesn’t support the : -: : : feature. : -| cons | The allow-list needs to be | Compilation might succeed but | -: : extended for each new platform. : runtime behavior might be : -: : : unexpected, if the interface exists : -: : : but the implementation is : -: : : problematic. : +| pros | Generally safe, and more likely to build on a new platform. | The compilation fails if a new platform doesn’t support the feature. | +| cons | The allow-list needs to be extended for each new platform. | Compilation might succeed but runtime behavior might be unexpected, if the interface exists but the implementation is problematic. | When choosing a opt-in or opt-out approach, think about what is likely to happen when a new platform is added and which approach is easier to maintain the