This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: More manual patches
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: More manual patches
- From: Bruce <bruce at puremagic dot com>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 03:54:51 -0600
- References: <3B0384D2.10001@cubik.org> <jezocctk4n.fsf@hawking.suse.de>
Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Bruce <bruce@puremagic.com> writes:
>
> |> Index: manual/argp.texi
> |> ===================================================================
> |> RCS file: /cvs/glibc/libc/manual/argp.texi,v
> |> retrieving revision 2.12
> |> diff -u -r2.12 argp.texi
> |> --- argp.texi 2000/12/28 08:40:50 2.12
> |> +++ argp.texi 2001/05/17 07:49:05
> |> @@ -810,7 +810,7 @@
> |> this flag is set, @code{ARGP_PARSE_ARGV0} is ignored, as @code{argv[0]}
> |> is used as the program name in the error messages. This flag implies
> |> @code{ARGP_NO_EXIT} (on the assumption that silent exiting upon errors
> |> -is bad behaviour).
> |> +is bad behavior).
>
> AFAIK this (and some of the other changes) is british vs. american
> spelling. What should be the standard in the manual?
That was the source of the changes for 'behaviour', 'initialise', and
'authorised'. In at least one place within the source, the American
spelling 'inititialized' was used (crypt.h's crypt_data struct), while
in the docs, the British spelling was used. That and some quick greps
seemed to show the American spellings as being more prevalent. I'm
happy to use either though and do the corrections for those words to
British spelling if that is what is desired.
- Bruce