From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-18 07:14:38
Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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?
Yes. Or, more precisely, "build targets" _is_ 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?
Unless you really mean the other interpretation, "targets that have
already been built," yes.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
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