At Thu, 14 Jul 2022 15:38:37 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote in > At Thu, 14 Jul 2022 09:40:25 +0700, John Naylor > <john.nay...@enterprisedb.com> wrote in > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 4:13 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > At Wed, 13 Jul 2022 18:09:43 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi < > > horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote in > > > > So, "e.g." (for example) in the message sounds like "that is", which I > > > > think is "i.e.". It should be fixed if this is correct. I'm not sure > > > > whether to keep using Latin-origin acronyms like this, but in the > > > > attached I used "i.e.". > > > > I did my own quick scan and found one use of i.e. that doesn't really fit, > > in a sentence that has other grammatical issues: > > > > - Due to the differences how ECPG works compared to Informix's > > ESQL/C (i.e., which steps > > + Due to differences in how ECPG works compared to Informix's ESQL/C > > (namely, which steps > > are purely grammar transformations and which steps rely on the > > Oh! > > > I've pushed that in addition to your changes, thanks! > > Thanks!
By the way, I forgot about back-branches. Don't we need to fix the same in back-branches? regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
