This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: can we avoid using contractions in GDB messages?

From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 15:29:46 +0400
Subject: Re: can we avoid using contractions in GDB messages?
References: <4D718A22.3020302@vmware.com> <20110307105158.GZ30306@adacore.com> <E1PwYXs-0000IB-Dl@fencepost.gnu.org>

> You mean, use "could not" instead of "couldn't"?  Why is that an
> issue?

Yes. I personally think it does not look good - we use these in
spoken English, but books, articles, and IMO software should not
be using them (makes me feel like the author was too lazy to write
the entire word).

-- 
Joel

References:
- [commit] symfile.c (simple_overlay_update): Check for null return.
  - From: Michael Snyder
- can we avoid using contractions in GDB messages? (was: "[commit] symfile.c (simple_overlay_update): Check for null return.")
  - From: Joel Brobecker
- Re: can we avoid using contractions in GDB messages?
  - From: Eli Zaretskii

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]