On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 09:14:51PM -0700, David Wohlferd wrote: > >Abot the patches themselves... Hard to review again, sigh... > > I know, and I'm sorry. > > I just can't see any way to completely re-org the text without the patch > becoming a nightmare. I was hoping the html links would make that > easier, but I guess not. On the plus side, Explicit reg vars is the > last section I plan to do this to. I appreciate you taking the time.
The HTML links did help; it still is hard to review. > >It provides an introduction, which is quite helpful in this case. Without > >some blurb the two-entry menu looks silly too. > > > >Can you move the intro to the separate pages instead of losing it > >altogether? > > I did keep a small amount of intro on the the menu page. If you feel > there's more that we should keep, I'm certainly willing to re-visit > this. Perhaps after we resolve the local/global stuff so we know what > we really want to say. Well, the intro as it was was a nice condensed description of the two kinds of reg var. If you don't want that in the menu, it would be nice to start the separate pages with it (so that the first paragraph says at a glance what the section is about). > >Two spaces after a full stop > > Oops.<sp><sp>Again.<sp><sp>You can probably just automatically add this > to every review you send me. It's just so automatic for me to type this > way. And only one after a comma, that was new ;-) > In my (feeble) defense, the original text had this too. Good excuse ;-) > Lastly, if some external website is linking to "Explicit Reg Vars", what > do we want to have happen now that we have renamed that to "Explicit > Register Variables"? Should the link just fail? I think so yes. Unless perhaps we *know* certain pages (maybe our own) link to certain places. Segher
