This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [MTASCsft PATCH WIP6 01/33] MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:49:18 -0200
- Subject: Re: [MTASCsft PATCH WIP6 01/33] MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <ortxelb5zd dot fsf at livre dot home> <52D6162F dot 50204 at redhat dot com>
On Jan 15, 2014, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> There are only a few nits here and there, please review.
Thanks! I'm still going through the long review message (thanks!), but
I thought I'd ask for feedback on this one point early, before I
consider the patch fully revised and ready for resubmission.
>> +* Unconditional Unsafety:: Features that make functions
>> + unconditionally unsafe.
> The double-un is not common usage in English. I would just simplify
> as "Features that make functions unsafe" with the title being
> "Unsafe Features."
>> +* Avoidable Unsafety:: Features that make functions unsafe,
>> + but that can be worked around.
> Again, this phrase is awkward in English. I would rewrite this as
> "Potentially Unsafe Features." That is to say the features have the
> potential for being unsafe unless you work around those problems.
How about:
* Unsafe Features:: Features that make functions unsafe.
* Conditionally Safe Features:: Features that make functions unsafe
in the absence of work-arounds.
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer