Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:38:28 -0400 From: Geoff Speicher <geoff@speicher.org> To: David Syphers <dsyphers@u.washington.edu> Cc: rionda@gufi.org Subject: Re: UPDATING readability Message-ID: <20041016233828.GA76284@sirius.speicher.org> In-Reply-To: <200410161416.51163.dsyphers@u.washington.edu> References: <1097916792.1810.4.camel@kaiser.sig11.org> <200410161208.32381.dsyphers@u.washington.edu> <200410161625.42502.marc.ramirez@bluecirclesoft.com> <200410161416.51163.dsyphers@u.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 02:16:50PM -0700, David Syphers wrote: > On Saturday 16 October 2004 01:25 pm, Marc Ramirez wrote: > > On Saturday 16 October 2004 03:08 pm, David Syphers wrote: > > > On Saturday 16 October 2004 01:53 am, Matteo Riondato wrote: > > > > Could we change an entry from: > > > > > > > > 20041007: > > > > One of the syscalls the 1:1 threading library libthr uses has > > > > changed, thus breaking ABI compatibility. Make sure you > > > > rebuild this library with the kernel. > > > > > > > > to: > > > > Compromise: One of the syscalls _which_ the ... > > Okay... this would be grammatically correct. However, I'm curious why the > original poster believes the current version to be unclear, since it is also > grammatically correct. (Omitting "that" or "which" at the beginning of a > restrictive relative clause is very common in English.) I think the point is that sometimes the omission makes a sentence less clear, and this is arguably an instance of one of those cases. I think you would agree that inserting a "that" isn't any less clear or correct. On my bikeshed, somebody wrote this: 20041007: Rebuild libthr the next time you rebuild your kernel. :) Geoff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041016233828.GA76284>