Re: [PATCH v2] Fix documentation for Type.template_argument.

[Justin Lebar <jlebar at google dot com>]

> I'm not away, I just remembered that I already reviewed this patch and
> responded with the review on the same day.

Indeed, and although there may have been a problem with the list, I
got your response and sent a fixed patch.  But maybe I misunderstood
your response?

> Otherwise, the patch is OK Texinfo-wise; I don't know enough about
> these issues to tell whether the content is correct

I thought this indicated I should wait for someone else to chime in?
Or were you saying this was OK to submit with this change?

Sorry, I'm obviously new here.  :)

-Justin

On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 07:42:50 -0700
>> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
>> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>>
>> > Ping on this patch?  (Would it be appropriate to find the last person
>> > to touch this documentation and cc him/her, or do something else like
>> > that?)
>>
>> No, Eli is the person to review this patch, not the last person to
>> touch it. Maybe he is away at the moment.
>
> I'm not away, I just remembered that I already reviewed this patch and
> responded with the review on the same day.
>
> It looks now that my response didn't make it to the list for some
> reason, because I see it in my FCC archive, but not in the list
> archives.
>
> So here's my response as I wrote it back then:
>
>   > From: Justin Lebar <jlebar@google.com>
>   > Cc: Justin Lebar <jlebar@google.com>
>   > Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:01:36 -0700
>   >
>   > -If this @code{gdb.Type} is not a template type, this will throw an
>   > -exception.  Ordinarily, only C@t{++} code will have template types.
>   > +If this @code{gdb.Type} is not a template type, or if the type has fewer
>   > +than N template arguments, this will throw an exception.  Ordinarily,
>           ^
>   @var{n}
>
>   Otherwise, the patch is OK Texinfo-wise; I don't know enough about
>   these issues to tell whether the content is correct, nor can I answer
>   your question.
>
>   Thanks.
>