From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-18 05:27:11
On Friday 05 May 2006 23:14, David Abrahams wrote:
> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > On Monday 03 April 2006 21:00, Richard Peters wrote:
> >> line 399 and at other places, documentation speaks of 'built targets'.
> >> Shouldn't these be 'build targets', meaning targets that are part of a
> >> build, instead of targets that are already built?
> > I'm not sure. "Built targets" can be read as "targets that will be
> > built".
> Yes, it *can*, but it can also be read the other way. Isn't it
> essential for documentation to avoid ambiguity?
Do you mean that "build targets" are less ambiguous?
> > Can native speakers say something?
> I don't think this has anything to do with whether I'm a native
> speaker or not. IMO you should pick the usage that's less open to
> misinterpretation. Richard's usage is fine.
So, I'll change "built targets" to "build targets" everywhere, right?
-- Vladimir Prus http://vladimir_prus.blogspot.com Boost.Build V2: http://boost.org/boost-build2
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk