From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-21 15:11:24
From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> >> "Hendrik Schober" <boost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >> 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?
Linux is a prime example. "Unix" is a trade name that means
something very specific. Not all Unix-like OSes are Unix.
> >> <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.
I'm pretty sure that you used italics to indicate user-specific
information elsewhere. (I'd had to go locate the previous
message and I don't have time at the moment.) Since the root is
based upon where the user unpacks the archive or installs things,
it is based upon the user's system needs. Note that I was
looking at the HTML source only, so your original may have been
> >> 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.
Change the second one to "standard?"
> >> Footnotes:
> >>  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?
It's not "unsure" alone that's the problem. It's the
juxtaposition of "you're" and "unsure" that I was talking about.
Note that one of the suggestions was to expand the contraction.
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk