Hi Alex, At 2023-01-07T20:47:20+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > See a few comments below (as you asked in another email). > > > +The Linux > > > +.I man-pages > > The Linux man-pages is a singular noun that denominates the project. > Using it as a plural noun that refers to the pages contained in it > sounds weird. In English this is a slippery area. In U.S. English nouns referring to collections tend to be singularized, whereas in Commonwealth English they tend to the plural, but exceptions are seen in both dialects[1] and the meaning is usually clear. > I find the new wording more confusing than the original. I'll recast, then. > > > +organize section 3 into subsections > > > that reflect the complex structure of the standard C library > > > -and its many implementations: > > > +and its many implementations. > > > +.IR libc 's > > > +difficult history frequently makes it a poor example to follow > > > +in design, > > > +implementation, > > > +and presentation. > > > .IP \(bu 3 > > > 3const > > > .IP \(bu > > > @@ -87,11 +93,6 @@ and its many implementations: > > > .IP \(bu > > > 3type > > > .PP > > The list of subsections seems more connected to "organize section 3 > into subsections", rather than with the comment about libc's > organization being crap. I think that is fine after reading the list, > stating that what you just read is crap, but necessary crap due to > libc's history. It read more poorly to me that way. My presentation was grounded on my recollection that we agreed that these new subsections of yours would not be necessary if the standard C library were not (1) huge and (2) disorganized. I'll take another crack at it, supplying a bit more motivation but trying not to recapitulate our discussion, which doesn't demand that degree of preservation. :P Regards, Branden [1] https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=877
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
