From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-21 14:05:44
Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
> From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
>> "Hendrik Schober" <boost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> See here how you can tailor Boost.Build for your platform.
>> See here how to do this.
>> are ungrammatical.
> The first can be rewritten as, "You can <a href="...">tailor
> Boost.Build</a> for your platform," for example.
That would be good.
>> To prepare Unix tools such as GCC, the compiler and linker must be
> Rather than "Unix" consider "*nix" to be more inclusive. Those
> using a *nix OS will understand. Those not using one won't care.
I have no objection.
But I do want to know: what *nix OS is not a Unix OS?
>> <p> Note: the <b><code>#include</code> root</b> directory mentioned
What is your rationale for suggesting that change?
The only possible reason I can imagine is that you're worried people
will think "root" is source code text. But there's already a good
hint: the change from code font. I'm pretty sure we don't want to get
into using bold-italic text without a very strong motivation.
>> The default build and install attempts to build all available
>> libraries and install to default locations the libraries and Boost
>> header files.
> Now you're sounding a bit like Yoda.
Yeah, I had a hard time with that one.
> How about this:
> The default build and install attempts to build all available
> libraries and install the libraries and header files to
> default locations.
I don't like the replication of "default," but I'm not sure how to
improve it at this point.
>> Also, there's a preposition missing before "how." How about,
>> If you are using an IDE, there is usually a graphical tool for
>> specifying which directories will be searched for
>> <code>#include<...></code>ed files.
> "Graphical tool" suggests something other than a dialog or other
> on-screen GUI structure to me. It suggests, e.g., charting. I
> suggest this:
> If you are using an IDE, it probably provides a means for
> specifying which directories will be searched for....
Better. "A means to specify" would be more natural for me.
>>  Depending on your installation, a Unix compiler such as GCC may
>> have additional requirements. Check with your system administrator
>> if you're unsure about your installation.
> While correct, "you're unsure" is a bit awkward. I suggest
> expanding the contraction or replacing "unsure" with "not sure."
Doesn't seem awkward to me. When do you feel "unsure" is unawkward?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk