On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Paulo J. Matos <pocma...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22/07/11 16:22, Joern Rennecke wrote: >>> >>> I have to disagree, library issue means that it's an issue with the >>> library, not gcc. >> >> It still makes sense to clarify the language to indicate that, depending >> on >> the library used, this might be, in fact, a library non-issue. >> > > We might be interpreting this differently. When I you it's a "library > issue", I understand it as begin something that has to do with the library, > not that it is a definite problem with the library. Therefore if I want to > see what's the feature status I should check the library documentation. I > didn't think that saying it is a library issue would mean that it is > definitely broken/missing in the library. > > Then again my native language is not english. However, by raising this > you're proving your point. If we can avoid different interpretations then > better.
While your use of the term "a library issue" meaning roughly "the responsibility of the library" is entirely correct, unfortunately the term "issue" has been hijacked of late as a euphemism for "problem", which leaves us without a good, unambiguous way to refer to issues that may not, in fact, be problems. -- James
