On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 09:54:07PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Hi Jason, >
hej! > > > .Nm > > > moves each file named by a > > > .Ar source > > > -operand to a destination specified by the > > > +operand into the destination specified by the > > > this seems correct, but it was anyway. what are you trying to change > > here? > > Two very minor issues: > > 1) The existing text uses the same wording for two different concepts: > First synopsis: moving to a place (like "I go to the bus stop.") > Second synopsis: moving into a container (like "I jump into the pool.") > As the two are technically rather different, i'd like to reflect the > difference at least a bit in the wording. > i like the simplicity of moving X to Y, regardless of what they are. pronouns (if that's the right word) are horribly inconsistent anyway, so i don;t really buy that argument - do you think of moving files *into* a directory? maybe, but some people move them *to* a directory. i see no problem with that wording. i'm against changing wording if we can;t think of a good idea why. > 2) We are talking about one (definite) destination directory, just like > for the first synopsis, were the text also talks about "the destination". > Thus, i don't like switching to the indefinite article, which might > suggest a difference where there is none. > right, i see that now too. i'd guess the author wrote naturally that after talking about "a source operand" that "a destination" would sound nice (i'm sure it occurred subconsciously). i'd be ok with changing that to "the destination path", ala first synopsis. that seems more consistent. > I realize, though, that there is no grammatical error or ambiguity. > > > other than that i think this diff is fine. but a technical ok would be > > useful too. > > I understand tedu@ already provided that one. > > Yours, > Ingo well, tedu posted the mail to tech, presumably looking for an ok. another ok would be good. maybe someone dislikes the changes? jmc
