[PATCH 0/2] trivial correction on doc

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[PATCH 0/2] trivial correction on doc

Cao jin
Feel free to massage the commit message if they are not good.

Cao jin (2):
  Trivial correction on document
  Consistent variable name make less confusion

 doc/make.texi | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--
2.1.0




_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[PATCH 2/2] Consistent variable name make less confusion

Cao jin
In chapter 8.7 "The `call' Function" of `info make`, there is inconsistent
variable name between example and description as following:

------------------------------------------------
  This macro simply reverses its arguments:

     reverse = $(2) $(1)

     foo = $(call reverse,a,b)

Here FOO will contain `b a'.
------------------------------------------------

Using "FOO" in both part for consistency.
---
 doc/make.texi | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/doc/make.texi b/doc/make.texi
index 343927b..589dd53 100644
--- a/doc/make.texi
+++ b/doc/make.texi
@@ -7651,7 +7651,7 @@ This macro simply reverses its arguments:
 @smallexample
 reverse = $(2) $(1)
 
-foo = $(call reverse,a,b)
+@var{foo} = $(call reverse,a,b)
 @end smallexample
 
 @noindent
--
2.1.0




_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[PATCH 1/2] Trivial correction on document

Cao jin
In reply to this post by Cao jin
---
 doc/make.texi | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/make.texi b/doc/make.texi
index dfa4454..343927b 100644
--- a/doc/make.texi
+++ b/doc/make.texi
@@ -1831,7 +1831,7 @@ more recent than it.
 @item
 How to update the file @file{foo.o}: by running @code{cc} as stated.
 The recipe does not explicitly mention @file{defs.h}, but we presume
-that @file{foo.c} includes it, and that that is why @file{defs.h} was
+that @file{foo.c} includes it, and that is why @file{defs.h} was
 added to the prerequisites.
 @end itemize
 @end ifnottex
@@ -10861,7 +10861,7 @@ into a Guile string and provided as the result of the procedure.
 @item gmk-eval
 @findex gmk-eval
 This procedure takes a single argument which is converted into a
-string.  The string is evaluated by @code{make} as if it were a
+string.  The string is evaluated by @code{make} as if it was a
 makefile.  This is the same capability available via the @code{eval}
 function (@pxref{Eval Function}).  The result of the @code{gmk-eval}
 procedure is always the empty string.
--
2.1.0




_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Trivial correction on document

Martin Dorey-3
My native English speaker intuition says that "if it were" and "if it was" are both available there.  https://english.stackexchange.com/a/146382 cites Huddleston and Pullum's grammar in agreement.  Other answers suggest the "were" form is getting rarer, so maybe it's a good idea to change it, even though it was right before.

I just couldn't see the "that that" problem with a line break in between them on my phone screen until a non-native speaker pointed it out.  Doh.

On Jun 20, 2017, at 21:14, Cao jin <[hidden email]> wrote:

---
doc/make.texi | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/make.texi b/doc/make.texi
index dfa4454..343927b 100644
--- a/doc/make.texi
+++ b/doc/make.texi
@@ -1831,7 +1831,7 @@ more recent than it.
@item
How to update the file @file{foo.o}: by running @code{cc} as stated.
The recipe does not explicitly mention @file{defs.h}, but we presume
-that @file{foo.c} includes it, and that that is why @file{defs.h} was
+that @file{foo.c} includes it, and that is why @file{defs.h} was
added to the prerequisites.
@end itemize
@end ifnottex
@@ -10861,7 +10861,7 @@ into a Guile string and provided as the result of the procedure.
@item gmk-eval
@findex gmk-eval
This procedure takes a single argument which is converted into a
-string.  The string is evaluated by @code{make} as if it were a
+string.  The string is evaluated by @code{make} as if it was a
makefile.  This is the same capability available via the @code{eval}
function (@pxref{Eval Function}).  The result of the @code{gmk-eval}
procedure is always the empty string.
--
2.1.0




_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
[hidden email]
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.gnu.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbug-make&data=01%7C01%7Cmartin.dorey%40hds.com%7Ced5b6211411e4b2878dc08d4b85c03ef%7C18791e1761594f52a8d4de814ca8284a%7C0&sdata=WeHYB9LMF3RbDODG0tgIqH5gil43n4PmnzTDcog2JaA%3D&reserved=0

_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Trivial correction on document

Cao jin


On 06/21/2017 01:38 PM, Martin Dorey wrote:
> My native English speaker intuition says that "if it were" and "if it
> was" are both available there.
>  https://english.stackexchange.com/a/146382 cites Huddleston and
> Pullum's grammar in agreement.  Other answers suggest the "were" form is
> getting rarer, so maybe it's a good idea to change it, even though it
> was right before.

I thought it is a grammatical mistake, until you tell me the
"subjunctive", which I really couldn't recall by myself:p

--
Sincerely,
Cao jin

>
> I just couldn't see the "that that" problem with a line break in between
> them on my phone screen until a non-native speaker pointed it out.  Doh.
>
> On Jun 20, 2017, at 21:14, Cao jin <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> ---
> doc/make.texi | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/doc/make.texi b/doc/make.texi
> index dfa4454..343927b 100644
> --- a/doc/make.texi
> +++ b/doc/make.texi
> @@ -1831,7 +1831,7 @@ more recent than it.
> @item
> How to update the file @file{foo.o}: by running @code{cc} as stated.
> The recipe does not explicitly mention @file{defs.h}, but we presume
> -that @file{foo.c} includes it, and that that is why @file{defs.h} was
> +that @file{foo.c} includes it, and that is why @file{defs.h} was
> added to the prerequisites.
> @end itemize
> @end ifnottex
> @@ -10861,7 +10861,7 @@ into a Guile string and provided as the result
> of the procedure.
> @item gmk-eval
> @findex gmk-eval
> This procedure takes a single argument which is converted into a
> -string.  The string is evaluated by @code{make} as if it were a
> +string.  The string is evaluated by @code{make} as if it was a
> makefile.  This is the same capability available via the @code{eval}
> function (@pxref{Eval Function}).  The result of the @code{gmk-eval}
> procedure is always the empty string.
> --
> 2.1.0
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-make mailing list
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.gnu.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbug-make&data=01%7C01%7Cmartin.dorey%40hds.com%7Ced5b6211411e4b2878dc08d4b85c03ef%7C18791e1761594f52a8d4de814ca8284a%7C0&sdata=WeHYB9LMF3RbDODG0tgIqH5gil43n4PmnzTDcog2JaA%3D&reserved=0



_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Trivial correction on document

Tim Murphy-4
In reply to this post by Martin Dorey-3
"that that" seems correct to me in this case and removing it incorrect.  There is a presumption and a conclusion and the sentence emphasises that the conclusion is still presumed.

On 21 June 2017 at 06:38, Martin Dorey <[hidden email]> wrote:
My native English speaker intuition says that "if it were" and "if it was" are both available there.  https://english.stackexchange.com/a/146382 cites Huddleston and Pullum's grammar in agreement.  Other answers suggest the "were" form is getting rarer, so maybe it's a good idea to change it, even though it was right before.

I just couldn't see the "that that" problem with a line break in between them on my phone screen until a non-native speaker pointed it out.  Doh.

On Jun 20, 2017, at 21:14, Cao jin <[hidden email]> wrote:

---
doc/make.texi | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/make.texi b/doc/make.texi
index dfa4454..343927b 100644
--- a/doc/make.texi
+++ b/doc/make.texi
@@ -1831,7 +1831,7 @@ more recent than it.
@item
How to update the file @file{foo.o}: by running @code{cc} as stated.
The recipe does not explicitly mention @file{defs.h}, but we presume
-that @file{foo.c} includes it, and that that is why @file{defs.h} was
+that @file{foo.c} includes it, and that is why @file{defs.h} was
added to the prerequisites.
@end itemize
@end ifnottex
@@ -10861,7 +10861,7 @@ into a Guile string and provided as the result of the procedure.
@item gmk-eval
@findex gmk-eval
This procedure takes a single argument which is converted into a
-string.  The string is evaluated by @code{make} as if it were a
+string.  The string is evaluated by @code{make} as if it was a
makefile.  This is the same capability available via the @code{eval}
function (@pxref{Eval Function}).  The result of the @code{gmk-eval}
procedure is always the empty string.
--
2.1.0




_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
[hidden email]
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.gnu.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbug-make&data=01%7C01%7Cmartin.dorey%40hds.com%7Ced5b6211411e4b2878dc08d4b85c03ef%7C18791e1761594f52a8d4de814ca8284a%7C0&sdata=WeHYB9LMF3RbDODG0tgIqH5gil43n4PmnzTDcog2JaA%3D&reserved=0

_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make



_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Trivial correction on document

Cao jin


On 06/21/2017 03:56 PM, Tim Murphy wrote:
> "that that" seems correct to me in this case and removing it incorrect.
> There is a presumption and a conclusion and the sentence emphasises that
> the conclusion is still presumed.
>

My feeling is, If we are orally saying the sentence, we may pause for a
while between "that that" to emphasize. like:

"and that,(pause to emphasize) that is bluh bluh"

But in text, our brain may not know to pause to feel the emphasis at the
1st reading. And after removing it, I feel more smooth when reading it.

This is not definitely a mistake, so, this patch maybe should called
"improvement", not "correction"

but anyway, I won't insist my option on this patch, because it is not
something make people confuse.
--
Sincerely,
Cao jin

> On 21 June 2017 at 06:38, Martin Dorey <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     My native English speaker intuition says that "if it were" and "if
>     it was" are both available there.
>      https://english.stackexchange.com/a/146382
>     <https://english.stackexchange.com/a/146382> cites Huddleston and
>     Pullum's grammar in agreement.  Other answers suggest the "were"
>     form is getting rarer, so maybe it's a good idea to change it, even
>     though it was right before.
>
>     I just couldn't see the "that that" problem with a line break in
>     between them on my phone screen until a non-native speaker pointed
>     it out.  Doh.
>
>     On Jun 20, 2017, at 21:14, Cao jin <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     ---
>     doc/make.texi | 4 ++--
>     1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>     diff --git a/doc/make.texi b/doc/make.texi
>     index dfa4454..343927b 100644
>     --- a/doc/make.texi
>     +++ b/doc/make.texi
>     @@ -1831,7 +1831,7 @@ more recent than it.
>     @item
>     How to update the file @file{foo.o}: by running @code{cc} as stated.
>     The recipe does not explicitly mention @file{defs.h}, but we presume
>     -that @file{foo.c} includes it, and that that is why @file{defs.h} was
>     +that @file{foo.c} includes it, and that is why @file{defs.h} was
>     added to the prerequisites.
>     @end itemize
>     @end ifnottex
>     @@ -10861,7 +10861,7 @@ into a Guile string and provided as the
>     result of the procedure.
>     @item gmk-eval
>     @findex gmk-eval
>     This procedure takes a single argument which is converted into a
>     -string.  The string is evaluated by @code{make} as if it were a
>     +string.  The string is evaluated by @code{make} as if it was a
>     makefile.  This is the same capability available via the @code{eval}
>     function (@pxref{Eval Function}).  The result of the @code{gmk-eval}
>     procedure is always the empty string.
>     --
>     2.1.0
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Bug-make mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.gnu.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbug-make&data=01%7C01%7Cmartin.dorey%40hds.com%7Ced5b6211411e4b2878dc08d4b85c03ef%7C18791e1761594f52a8d4de814ca8284a%7C0&sdata=WeHYB9LMF3RbDODG0tgIqH5gil43n4PmnzTDcog2JaA%3D&reserved=0
>     <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.gnu.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbug-make&data=01%7C01%7Cmartin.dorey%40hds.com%7Ced5b6211411e4b2878dc08d4b85c03ef%7C18791e1761594f52a8d4de814ca8284a%7C0&sdata=WeHYB9LMF3RbDODG0tgIqH5gil43n4PmnzTDcog2JaA%3D&reserved=0>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Bug-make mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
>     <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make>
>
>





_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Consistent variable name make less confusion

Cao jin
In reply to this post by Cao jin
Find that I missed more similar case in this node, please ignore this
one, I will send v2.

--
Sincerely,
Cao jin

On 06/21/2017 12:17 PM, Cao jin wrote:

> In chapter 8.7 "The `call' Function" of `info make`, there is inconsistent
> variable name between example and description as following:
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>   This macro simply reverses its arguments:
>
>      reverse = $(2) $(1)
>
>      foo = $(call reverse,a,b)
>
> Here FOO will contain `b a'.
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Using "FOO" in both part for consistency.
> ---
>  doc/make.texi | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/doc/make.texi b/doc/make.texi
> index 343927b..589dd53 100644
> --- a/doc/make.texi
> +++ b/doc/make.texi
> @@ -7651,7 +7651,7 @@ This macro simply reverses its arguments:
>  @smallexample
>  reverse = $(2) $(1)
>  
> -foo = $(call reverse,a,b)
> +@var{foo} = $(call reverse,a,b)
>  @end smallexample
>  
>  @noindent
>




_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
Loading...