Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 12:12:46 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> To: Bruce Cran <brucec@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r211936 - in head: bin/test lib/libc/net lib/libc/stdio lib/libc/stdlib lib/libc/sys lib/libipx libexec/ypxfr sbin/ipfw secure/lib/libcrypto/man share/man/man4 share/man/man9 usr.sbin/I... Message-ID: <20100829115717.G26978@delplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <201008281632.o7SGW18U036444@svn.freebsd.org> References: <201008281632.o7SGW18U036444@svn.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, Bruce Cran wrote: > Log: > Fix incorrect usage of 'assure' and 'insure'. I think some of the `assure's are more correct than their replacement of `ensure'. The difference is subtle -- my small 1960's English dictionary starts by saying that both mean "make safe"; it gives the meaning "make certain to happen" only for `ensure', and this is usually the meaning that we want, but I read `assure' as saying a little more -- that we have done the ensuring and that clients cant trust us to have done it. At least in old drafts, both POSIX and C99 use both `assure' and `ensure', but never `insure'. C99 only has 3 `assure's so it is easier to analyze. I think 1 or 2 of them would be better as `ensure'. But C99 also uses `assuredly'. It would be strange if an assurance or satisfaction of an `assuredly' could not be done by `assure'ing it. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100829115717.G26978>