From: David Symonds Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 07:20:10 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] Grammar fixes for gitattributes documentation Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20071115071558.GE10185@sigill.intra.peff.net> On Nov 15, 2007 6:15 PM, Jeff King wrote: > 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.