On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 04:35:07AM -0400, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The plural form of "id" is "ids", not "id's", right? > > It is a matter of some debate, actually. As an abbreviation, it should > rightly be "ID", and therefore "IDs". Most style manuals indicate that > no apostrophe should be used these days, unless it is an abbreviation > separated by dots (e.g., "I.D.'s"). > > Some disagree, and some indicate that you should use an apostrophe where > it may be visually more clear (for example, in single-letter > abbreviations like "A's"). > > There is a nice summary of some style guides here: > > http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=499296 > > Honestly, for such an informal bit of text as a code comment, I'm not > sure it is worth nit-picking the grammar (e.g., we should be > writing SHA-1 everywhere, and we obviously don't). I'll let Shawn decide > whether he wants to apply or not. As a non-native I did not know to resolve "id's" to "id is" or "id has", and once I figured it out, I thought about sending a patch. Though, if that helps, I can resend it with "Blobs defined by non-textual hash IDs can be cached" to be more readable.
Attachment:
pgpcwgg23fEzB.pgp
Description: PGP signature