Re: mv example fix

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Jason McIntyre
Date: Sunday, December 26, 2010 - 2:08 pm

On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 09:54:07PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:

hej!


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.



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.


well, tedu posted the mail to tech, presumably looking for an ok.
another ok would be good. maybe someone dislikes the changes?

jmc
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
mv example fix, Ted Unangst, (Sat Dec 25, 10:39 pm)
Re: mv example fix, Ingo Schwarze, (Sun Dec 26, 10:23 am)
Re: mv example fix, Jason McIntyre, (Sun Dec 26, 10:38 am)
Re: mv example fix, Ingo Schwarze, (Sun Dec 26, 11:41 am)
Re: mv example fix, Jason McIntyre, (Sun Dec 26, 1:25 pm)
Re: mv example fix, Ingo Schwarze, (Sun Dec 26, 1:54 pm)
Re: mv example fix, Jason McIntyre, (Sun Dec 26, 2:08 pm)