Re: [boost] Customer Friendlier Boost Installation -- (Finally) Getting Started

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.
>> and
>>     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
>
> s/root/<i>root</i>

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
                                  ^--- "process"
>    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.

>> Footnotes: 
>> [1] 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