On Nov 15, 2007 6:15 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 10:04:25AM +0100, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
>
> >>> +A `filter` attribute can be set to a string value which names a
> >>> filter driver specified in the configuration.
> >>
> >> Will we get the canned "which vs that" discussion on this change?
> >
> > Perhaps. Neither would be incorrect, although technically "that" is a
> > tighter match.
>
> Really? I would think "which" works better, in that it is not
> restrictive. I.e., "The filter attribute is set to a string. This
> string, btw, names a filter driver" (which) rather than "The filter
> attribute is set to a string, and from the set of strings, it is set to
> the particular string that names a filter driver" (that).

"that" should be used to introduce restrictive clauses (as you point
out), and this use should be a restrictive clause, since you can't set
the attribute to just any value--you need to set it to the value
*that* names the desired filter driver.


Dave.
... writing a thesis, so has grammar on the brain.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html