On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:48:24PM +0200, Daniel Baluta wrote: > The following phrase taken from man 2 write manual page is confusing: > POSIX requires that a read(2) which can be proved to occur after a > write() has returned returns the new data. > > I think you should you some comas to make a clear statement. > POSIX requires that a read(2), which can be proved to occur after a > write() has returned, returns the new data. thanks, Daniel.
You may find it clearer to read that way, but I believe it would
incorrect. A comma before a which clause suggests that it does not
/define/ the element to which it refers, but merely /describes/ it. In
this case the which clause adds essential, defining information about
the read(2) call, so I believe adding the comma would be wrong.
I should note that I'm not a native English speaker, nor have I studied
English grammar for well over 10 years. The Intarweb[1] does seem to
support my argument, though.
[1]: A search for "comma before which" yields a lot of promosing
references. http://wire.rutgers.edu/p_grammar_comma2.html for one
looks credible to me.
--
Soren Hansen
Ubuntu Developer & wanna-be grammar nazi
http://www.ubuntu.com/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
