Re: [PATCH] Grammar fixes for gitattributes documentation

From: David Symonds <dsymonds@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 15, 2007, 07:20 UTC
Message-ID: <ee77f5c20711142320x1a070b21xf00f0853fe09e34c@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20071115071558.GE10185@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Nov 15, 2007 6:15 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 10:04:25AM +0100, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
>
> >>> +A `filter` attribute can be set to a string value which names a
> >>> filter driver specified in the configuration.
> >>
> >> Will we get the canned "which vs that" discussion on this change?
> >
> > Perhaps. Neither would be incorrect, although technically "that" is a
> > tighter match.
>
> Really? I would think "which" works better, in that it is not
> restrictive. I.e., "The filter attribute is set to a string. This
> string, btw, names a filter driver" (which) rather than "The filter
> attribute is set to a string, and from the set of strings, it is set to
> the particular string that names a filter driver" (that).

"that" should be used to introduce restrictive clauses (as you point out), and this use should be a restrictive clause, since you can't set the attribute to just any value--you need to set it to the value *that* names the desired filter driver.

Dave. ... writing a thesis, so has grammar on the brain.