On 06/21/2017 03:56 PM, Tim Murphy wrote: > "that that" seems correct to me in this case and removing it incorrect. > There is a presumption and a conclusion and the sentence emphasises that > the conclusion is still presumed. >
My feeling is, If we are orally saying the sentence, we may pause for a while between "that that" to emphasize. like: "and that,(pause to emphasize) that is bluh bluh" But in text, our brain may not know to pause to feel the emphasis at the 1st reading. And after removing it, I feel more smooth when reading it. This is not definitely a mistake, so, this patch maybe should called "improvement", not "correction" but anyway, I won't insist my option on this patch, because it is not something make people confuse. -- Sincerely, Cao jin > On 21 June 2017 at 06:38, Martin Dorey <martin.do...@hds.com > <mailto:martin.do...@hds.com>> wrote: > > My native English speaker intuition says that "if it were" and "if > it was" are both available there. > https://english.stackexchange.com/a/146382 > <https://english.stackexchange.com/a/146382> cites Huddleston and > Pullum's grammar in agreement. Other answers suggest the "were" > form is getting rarer, so maybe it's a good idea to change it, even > though it was right before. > > I just couldn't see the "that that" problem with a line break in > between them on my phone screen until a non-native speaker pointed > it out. Doh. > > On Jun 20, 2017, at 21:14, Cao jin <caoj.f...@cn.fujitsu.com > <mailto:caoj.f...@cn.fujitsu.com>> wrote: > > --- > doc/make.texi | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/doc/make.texi b/doc/make.texi > index dfa4454..343927b 100644 > --- a/doc/make.texi > +++ b/doc/make.texi > @@ -1831,7 +1831,7 @@ more recent than it. > @item > How to update the file @file{foo.o}: by running @code{cc} as stated. > The recipe does not explicitly mention @file{defs.h}, but we presume > -that @file{foo.c} includes it, and that that is why @file{defs.h} was > +that @file{foo.c} includes it, and that is why @file{defs.h} was > added to the prerequisites. > @end itemize > @end ifnottex > @@ -10861,7 +10861,7 @@ into a Guile string and provided as the > result of the procedure. > @item gmk-eval > @findex gmk-eval > This procedure takes a single argument which is converted into a > -string. The string is evaluated by @code{make} as if it were a > +string. The string is evaluated by @code{make} as if it was a > makefile. This is the same capability available via the @code{eval} > function (@pxref{Eval Function}). The result of the @code{gmk-eval} > procedure is always the empty string. > -- > 2.1.0 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bug-make mailing list > Bug-make@gnu.org <mailto:Bug-make@gnu.org> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.gnu.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbug-make&data=01%7C01%7Cmartin.dorey%40hds.com%7Ced5b6211411e4b2878dc08d4b85c03ef%7C18791e1761594f52a8d4de814ca8284a%7C0&sdata=WeHYB9LMF3RbDODG0tgIqH5gil43n4PmnzTDcog2JaA%3D&reserved=0 > > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.gnu.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbug-make&data=01%7C01%7Cmartin.dorey%40hds.com%7Ced5b6211411e4b2878dc08d4b85c03ef%7C18791e1761594f52a8d4de814ca8284a%7C0&sdata=WeHYB9LMF3RbDODG0tgIqH5gil43n4PmnzTDcog2JaA%3D&reserved=0> > > _______________________________________________ > Bug-make mailing list > Bug-make@gnu.org <mailto:Bug-make@gnu.org> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make > <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make> > > _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
