Re: [PATCH 3/4] Fix misuses of "nor" in comments
- From
Justin Lebar <jlebar@google.com>
- Date
- Mar 20, 2014, 23:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAMuNMfov+Z0Hx_a-hZ2ZGRdkTtw1eqUn01gWEQ+caT3VcHZkVQ@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAEjxke_+=v8HOi9u5Bd_CxmnWcJmaFBSjrXJF8puEp7X84H_nQ@mail.gmail.com>
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?
Show 15 quoted lines
>> 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.
> 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)."
> This would be better worded as "If src_buffer and *src_buffer are not NULL, it should ..."
Done.
-Justin