From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-58245-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 25370 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2008 15:05:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 25360 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Aug 2008 15:05:24 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:04:49 +0000
Received: (qmail 10920 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2008 15:04:47 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 30 Aug 2008 15:04:47 -0000
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: "Doug Evans" <dje@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix thinko in pre/post hook help output
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:05:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
References: <20080829235547.5279D1C7801@localhost> <200808300118.26587.pedro@codesourcery.com> <e394668d0808291855n7784e410rbf65669f856713fc@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e394668d0808291855n7784e410rbf65669f856713fc@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200808301604.40222.pedro@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-08/txt/msg00668.txt.bz2

On Saturday 30 August 2008 02:55:59, Doug Evans wrote:

> Oh bother.  I guess it can be interpreted that way.  Serves me right
> for assuming interpreting English is obvious.
> Reverted.

I'm very sorry, and it serves me right to learn to keep quiet.  :-(   Indeed,
it can be interpreted both ways.  It's the use of "This command"
possibly refering to a different command from the previous sentence
also using "This command", that makes it ambiguous, IMHO; but
the ':' may point out that it is refering to the following command.

How about we close this issue with changing the output to:

  This command has the following hook (or hooks) defined:
          The following command is run before: %s (pre hook)
          The following command is run after : %s (post hook)

?

-- 
Pedro Alves