On 03/15/2017 09:40 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 03/15/2017 05:00 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
First, I agree that the less formal language is becoming more
acceptable. Some style guides explicitly allow contractions,
but others advise against them. The technical specifications
that significant par
> > The latter references other documents, which advocate for more use of
> > contractions even in formal writing.
>
> These are legal guides, not obviously relevant in the context
> of technical writing.
Yes and no. The argument for them is that legal writing is the most formal
of all and has b
On 03/14/2017 09:53 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
The GCC manual uses "cannot" in most places (280 lines) but there
are a few instances of "can't" (33 lines).
The attached patch replaces the informal "can't" with the former
for consistency.
In my opinion, this is the wrong direction. Contraction
On 03/15/2017 09:40 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 03/15/2017 05:00 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
First, I agree that the less formal language is becoming more
acceptable. Some style guides explicitly allow contractions,
but others advise against them. The technical specifications
that significant par
On 03/15/2017 05:00 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
First, I agree that the less formal language is becoming more
acceptable. Some style guides explicitly allow contractions,
but others advise against them. The technical specifications
that significant parts of GCC aim to conform to, and those I
happ
> First, I agree that the less formal language is becoming more
> acceptable. Some style guides explicitly allow contractions,
> but others advise against them. The technical specifications
> that significant parts of GCC aim to conform to, and those I
> happen to work with the most closely (the
On 03/14/2017 02:53 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
The GCC manual uses "cannot" in most places (280 lines) but there
are a few instances of "can't" (33 lines).
The attached patch replaces the informal "can't" with the former
for consistency.
In my opinion, this is the wrong direction. Contractions
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
> PS I wasted quite a bit of time updating tm.texi. I kept getting
> the error below and didn't realize (forgot) that it was asking me
> to copy $objdir/gcc/tm.texi to $srcdir/gcc/doc/tm.texi. Can
> someone explain why this file requires these special ste
On 03/14/2017 01:41 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Martin Sebor writes:
@@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ example, this code would produce an error:
@smallexample
#if 0
-You can't expect this to work.
+You cannot expect this to work.
#endif
@end smallexample
Sure the maintainers would have caught this,
> The GCC manual uses "cannot" in most places (280 lines) but there
> are a few instances of "can't" (33 lines).
>
> The attached patch replaces the informal "can't" with the former
> for consistency.
In my opinion, this is the wrong direction. Contractions are becoming
more acceptable in even m
Martin Sebor writes:
> @@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ example, this code would produce an error:
>
> @smallexample
> #if 0
> -You can't expect this to work.
> +You cannot expect this to work.
> #endif
> @end smallexample
>
Sure the maintainers would have caught this, but: the "'" is needed here.
The
In formal writing it's recommended to prefer the word "cannot"
to the somewhat informal "can't."
The GCC manual uses "cannot" in most places (280 lines) but there
are a few instances of "can't" (33 lines).
The attached patch replaces the informal "can't" with the former
for consistency.
Thanks
12 matches
Mail list logo
