Re: [RFC][PATCH v9 6/6] Documentation to the above changes (bug 10871).

[Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak at lingonborough dot com>]

9.11.2017 16:19 Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Rafal Luzynski
> <digitalfreak@lingonborough.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for your review. Actually it seems to me that you have
> > replaced almost whole my documentation. I am really OK with that!
> > Wouldn't you like to give a tag for example "Signed-off-by"
> > eventually?
>
> Are we officially doing that now? I have to admit I don't really get
> the point of it,

My aim was to give you a credit for actually writing the documentation.
"Reviewed-by:" is a credit for a review but if I understood correctly
"Signed-off-by:" is a credit for authorship.  Although I might have
misunderstood.

> but yes, you can go ahead and put
>
> Reviewed-by: Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com>
>
> on all of these patches if we are officially requiring it.

I think I have not yet finished the fixes so I'll ask you for more
reviews and giving this tag again.  I'm preparing the new version.

> [...]
> > 27.10.2017 19:47 Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> However, you are using "precise" as a verb here, which doesn't make
> >> sense; "precise" is not used as a verb in any variety of English that
> >> I know. I only understood what you meant after reading the entire
> >> patch. What you want to say is
> >>
> >> [BZ#10871]
> >> * manual/locale.texi: Document ALTMON_1..12 constants for
> >> nl_langinfo. Explain when to use ALTMON instead of MON.
> >> * manual/time.texi (strftime, strptime): Document GNU extension
> >> permitting O modifier with %B and %b. Explain when to use
> >> %OB instead of %B..
> >
> > That's one of the reasons why I need a review or even another person
> > writing the documentation. :-( I have checked the dictionaries and
> > the correct verb (or a term) which I meant was "clarify", "qualify",
> > "pinpoint", "specify", "state precisely". Please suggest which term
> > to use or please tell that your version does not need any further
> > changes.
>
> Thanks for explaining. Because this is formal documentation of a new
> feature, I think the best word to use would be "specify".

So:

+       * manual/locale.texi: Document ALTMON_1..12 constants for
+       nl_langinfo.  Specify when to use ALTMON instead of MON.
+       * manual/time.texi (strftime, strptime): Document GNU extension
+       permitting O modifier with %B and %b.  Specify when to use
+       %OB instead of %B.

will this be OK?

> >> + * Support for two grammatical forms of month name has been added.
> >> + In a call to strftime, the "%B" and "%b" format specifiers will now
> >> + produce the grammatical form required when the month is used as part
> >> + of a complete date. New "%OB" and "%Ob" specifiers produce the form
> >> + required when the month is named by itself. For instance, in many
> >> + Slavic and Baltic languages, "%B" will produce the month in genitive
> >> + case, and "%OB" will produce the month in nominative case.
> >
> > You have removed "Greek". Are you sure you want to remove this?
> > Of course it does not make sense to mention all languages here but
> > on the other hand I'd like to avoid the suggestion that this is only
> > for Slavic (or Balto-Slavic) languages. In fact, these are the original
> > (ancient) features of whole Indo-European family.
>
> I removed "Greek" because I didn't know if it was correct to say that
> %B will use genitive case and %OB will use nominative case _for Greek_.
> If it is, we could say
>
> + For instance, in Greek and in many Slavic and Baltic languages, ...
>
> (English prefers to order lists like this from most to least specific.)
>
> On the other hand, if Greek wants some other case for %B (accusative,
> perhaps, because it was dative in Ancient Greek?) then we could say
> instead
>
> + For instance, in Greek and in many Baltic and Slavic languages, %B and
> + %OB produce the month in different noun cases
>
> and avoid saying which cases they are.

I have contacted my two Greek friends and they both confirm this is
a genitive case.  There is no dative in the contemporary Greek language.
Accusative exists but this is not the case.  So I will add Greek again.

> I wish I knew a non-Indo-European example to throw in.

It seems to me that Basque is a good example.  Another good example
is Finnish but their case system is too trivial so they prefer not
to use this solution. [1]

Regards,

Rafal


[1] https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10871#c41