Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-22 08:01:03

Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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.

No, I use it to indicate placeholder words that are designed to be
replaced by the user in some larger context, e.g.

  The command

     <tt>bjam</tt> <i>target-name</i>

  will build the specified target.

> (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 fine anyway.

My original was fine; italicizing is inappropriate in this context.

>> >> 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"
> Yes.
>> > 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?"

Good, but I'd change the first one to standard, because otherwise the
reader may think we're referring to some platform standard. Maybe
true on *nix but not on Windoze.

>> >> 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?
> 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.

Okay, I think I understand what you mean. "you're unsure" is a little
hard to pronounce and it rhymes. Probably your suggestion is the
right one.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at