Re: [PATCH 3/4] Fix misuses of "nor" in comments

From: Jason St. John <jstjohn@purdue.edu>
Date: Mar 22, 2014, 23:47 UTC
Message-ID: <CAEjxke-Qe=CYwR9akZ9anjjbO3Tf83f-Y0J4qOJ+i4pKZ=-vAQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMuNMfov+Z0Hx_a-hZ2ZGRdkTtw1eqUn01gWEQ+caT3VcHZkVQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Justin Lebar <jlebar@google.com> wrote:

Show 33 quoted lines

> Thanks for the quick reply.
>
> When I send a new patch, should I fold these changes into the original
> commit, or should I send them as a separate commit?
>
>>> diff --git a/builtin/apply.c b/builtin/apply.c
>>> index b0d0986..6013e19 100644
>>> --- a/builtin/apply.c
>>> +++ b/builtin/apply.c
>>> @@ -4061,7 +4061,7 @@ static int write_out_one_reject(struct patch *patch)
>>>                 return error(_("cannot open %s: %s"), namebuf, strerror(errno));
>>>
>>>         /* Normal git tools never deal with .rej, so do not pretend
>>> -        * this is a git patch by saying --git nor give extended
>>> +        * this is a git patch by saying --git or giving extended
>>>          * headers.  While at it, maybe please "kompare" that wants
>>>          * the trailing TAB and some garbage at the end of line ;-).
>>>          */
>>
>> I don't think the change from "give" to "giving" here is grammatically correct.
>
> Is it?  I might be misunderstanding the sentence, then.  I parse the
> new sentence as
>
>   Do not pretend this is a git patch by
>   - saying --git, or
>   - giving extended headers.
>
> "Giving" is definitely awkward, but I'm not sure of a better word.
>
> I'm happy to rephrase this, but I'm not sure how.  I don't think the
> original makes much sense, but I'm also happy to leave it.
>

You're right; that makes sense. Disregard my comment about that chunk.

Show 13 quoted lines

>> How about ``If none of "always", "never", or "auto" is specified, then setting layout
>> implies "always".``?
>
> Sure.
>
>> To leave "nor" here, I think you need to replace "not" with "neither".
>
> I think it actually works after the change, but unfortunately Garner's
> doesn't give me a lot of ammunition to back up that feeling.  :)
>
> How about "We don't expect this to be set by the Makefile or by the
> user (via CFLAGS)."
>

I feel like I'm splitting hairs, but I think there's a change in meaning if you use that phrasing. The difference being "not expecting" vs. "should not". I don't know which is correct, so I'll defer that to someone else.

Show 5 quoted lines

>> This would be better worded as "If src_buffer and *src_buffer are not NULL, it should ..."
>
> Done.
>
> -Justin

Jason