Re: [PATCH] manual: fix up grammar

[Russ Allbery <rra at stanford dot edu>]

Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes:

> A while ago I was on a long trip and decided to read the glibc manual.
> Crazy, but the message translation section could use a lot of grammar
> fix ups, so I did that.

A couple minor additional fixes I noticed while skimming the patch.  (Not
problems you introduced, just other things that were already there.)

[...]

> @@ -348,20 +346,20 @@ previously was defined.  It is an error if the name is unknown.
>  @end itemize
>  
>  In both cases all messages in the specified set will be removed.  They
> -will not appear in the output.  But if this set is later again selected
> -with a @code{$set} command again messages could be added and these
> -messages will appear in the output.
> +will not appear in the output.  But if this set is later selected
> +with a @code{$set} command, messages could be added and will appear in
> +the output.
>  
>  @item
> -If a line contains after leading whitespaces the sequence
> +If a line contains, after leading whitespace, the sequence
>  @code{$quote}, the quoting character used for this input file is
>  changed to the first non-whitespace character following the
>  @code{$quote}.  If no non-whitespace character is present before the
> -line ends quoting is disable.
> +line ends, quoting is disable.

I suspect that should be "quoting is disabled".

> @@ -527,10 +525,10 @@ generated the old output files are not in the generated header file.
>  @node Common Usage
>  @subsection How to use the @code{catgets} interface
>  
> -The @code{catgets} functions can be used in two different ways.  By
> -following slavishly the X/Open specs and not relying on the extension
> -and by using the GNU extensions.  We will take a look at the former
> -method first to understand the benefits of extensions.
> +The @code{catgets} functions can be used in two different ways: by
> +following slavishly the X/Open specs and not relying on the extension,

"slavishly following" is normally considered more idiomatic, and I suspect
that should be "not relying on extensions" instead of "on the extension."

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>