From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15764 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2011 11:30:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 15734 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Mar 2011 11:30:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 11:30:11 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06CB62BAF71; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 06:30:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id OwTNOG3LlS4x; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 06:30:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F0B2BADD6; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 06:30:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F356A1459AD; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 15:29:46 +0400 (RET) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 12:14:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: can we avoid using contractions in GDB messages? Message-ID: <20110307112946.GF30306@adacore.com> References: <4D718A22.3020302@vmware.com> <20110307105158.GZ30306@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00453.txt.bz2 > You mean, use "could not" instead of "couldn't"? Why is that an > issue? Yes. I personally think it does not look good - we use these in spoken English, but books, articles, and IMO software should not be using them (makes me feel like the author was too lazy to write the entire word). -- Joel