Hi Alex, At 2023-01-22T22:22:02+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > On 1/22/23 20:31, Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > > Without further ado, the following was found: > > > > Issue 1: runlevel 2 → run-level 2 > I believe the fix would be to use runlevel everywhere. run-level is > not correct under any point of view, if I'm correct. It would be correct if it were used attributively, to modify a subsequent noun, for example. "I was able to gain root with some run-level shenanigans," for example. > It should be runlevel for a new term formed specifically for > programming purposes, or run level for normal English. > > Branden, can you confirm? Only the latter half of that. There are no rules in English grammar for forming terms specifically for programming purposes. You may be thinking of programming languages that don't permit spaces in identifiers (for good reason). For example, int runlevel; is fine. To drop this variable name as-is into prose is to mistake the implementation for the concept, or to confuse the map with the territory, as the saying goes. Man pages are _in_ normal English, except for quotations or displayed examples of code. I therefore recommend "run level". Regards, Branden
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
