This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: can we avoid using contractions in GDB messages?

From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at vmware dot com>
To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
Cc: "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 10:55:55 -0800
Subject: Re: can we avoid using contractions in GDB messages?
References: <4D718A22.3020302@vmware.com> <20110307105158.GZ30306@adacore.com>

Joel Brobecker wrote:

Just a suggestion. It's really a detail, and I won't push for us
to adopt this suggestion, but:

+	if (minsym == NULL)
+	  error (_("Error reading inferior's overlay table: couldn't "
+		   "find `_ovly_table' array\n"
+		   "in inferior.  Use `overlay manual' mode."));


I'm not very fond of contractions in error messages (or any message
printed by GDB). I know there is plenty of "prior art" of our use
of contractions in the output, but I just think it looks better to
spell words completely.  For the future, can we agree on avoiding
contractions?


My $0.02 -- I don't think there's anything wrong with contractions.
They're a part of standard English.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: can we avoid using contractions in GDB messages?
  - From: Paul Koning

References:
- [commit] symfile.c (simple_overlay_update): Check for null return.
  - From: Michael Snyder
- can we avoid using contractions in GDB messages? (was: "[commit] symfile.c (simple_overlay_update): Check for null return.")
  - From: Joel Brobecker

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]