Re: [PATCH v3] manual: fix up grammar

[Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>]

On Sunday 28 October 2012 21:32:39 Roland McGrath wrote:
> >  But each message (unless equal to another one) must have its own unique
> > -pair of set and message number.
> > +pair of set and message numbers.
> 
> This change is wrong.

why ?  messages are identified with a set number, and with a message number.  
that's two numbers.  hence, you have a pair of set and message numbers.

> > -We see how the catalog object is opened and the returned descriptor used
> > +We see how the catalog object is opened and the returned descriptor is
> > used
> >  in the other function calls.
> 
> This change is OK but the grammar was acceptable unchanged.

true ... i can leave it

> I noticed several other changes that were not, stricly speaking, grammar or
> spelling fixes, but just rewordings.  Those may well be improvements, but
> I don't think you should include them in a patch that is labelled as being
> purely fixes for actual grammatical errors.

in some cases, i didn't think the sentence were salvageable (from a grammar 
perspective), so i just redid them.

> >  @smallexample
> > -@cartouche
> >  % gencat -H msgnrs.h -o hello.cat hello.msg
> >  % cat msgnrs.h
> >  #define MainSet 0x1     /* hello.msg:4 */
> > @@ -711,10 +706,9 @@ de
> >  % ./hello
> >  Hallo, Welt!
> >  %
> > -@end cartouche
> >  @end smallexample
> 
> A formatting change like this really has nothing whatsoever to do with
> grammar.  Again, perhaps it's desireable.  But make it a separate change
> and call it what it is.

true.  in this case, i just happened to notice the output gets screwed up if 
you try to use a cartouche inside of an example with html:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Common-Usage.html

this is because @cartouche outputs a <table> for the borders, and putting that 
inside of a <pre> doesn't work.  rather than re-order, i just dropped it.  
none of the other examples here used @cartouche, and it didn't even seem 
necessary.

i'll split it out though.

> > +While the paradigms underlying the @code{gettext} approach to message
> > +translations are different from that of the @code{catgets} functions,
> > the +basic functionally is equivalent.
> 
> either singular "paradigm" or "from those"

yep, i missed that in the original
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.