On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 at 12:27, David G. Johnston
wrote:
> On Monday, April 21, 2025, David Rowley wrote:
>> Does anyone have any opinion on the wording I'm proposing in the attached?
>
> I like it. It removes the problematic wording and moves the reference to
> —all closer to the front to aid in
On Monday, April 21, 2025, David Rowley wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any opinion on the wording I'm proposing in the attached?
>
I like it. It removes the problematic wording and moves the reference to
—all closer to the front to aid in skimming.
David J.
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 at 08:53, Noboru Saito wrote:
> Regarding "to to" and "that that", I agree that they might be
> technically acceptable.
> However, I personally find them a bit harder to parse and they
> increase the chance of misreading for me.
> Your suggested alternative for "to to" is much
Thank you for the review! I appreciate your detailed feedback.
Regarding "to to" and "that that", I agree that they might be
technically acceptable.
However, I personally find them a bit harder to parse and they
increase the chance of misreading for me.
Your suggested alternative for "to to" is mu
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 at 15:06, Noboru Saito wrote:
> 1. Remove unnecessary blank lines (blankline.diff)
Looks good.
> 2. Fix repeated "to to" in several command reference files (toto.diff)
-Specifies the name of the database to connect to to discover which
+Specifies the name of
