Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 11:37:10 +0100 From: Ceri Davies <setantae@submonkey.net> To: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: RFC: Removing "try and <verb>" from the docs Message-ID: <20020407103710.GA3018@submonkey.net> In-Reply-To: <20020406180122.GB8722@hades.hell.gr> References: <20020404133226.GA8872@hades.hell.gr> <20020404143819.GB8766@submonkey.net> <20020406180122.GB8722@hades.hell.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 09:01:22PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2002-04-04 15:38, Ceri wrote: > > Also, I'm not convinced that the handbook is "beautiful" :) > > That was meant to mean "aesthetically pleasing" so I might change it > to that, if it looks better that way. Cool. I don't have a major issue with "beautiful" if you do want to use that though. > > > --- en_US.ISO8859-1/books/fdp-primer/structure/chapter.sgml 26 Mar 2002 22:31:55 -0000 1.10 > > > +++ en_US.ISO8859-1/books/fdp-primer/structure/chapter.sgml 3 Apr 2002 22:22:35 -0000 > > > Same problem here that I have with the emacs one above. > > Well, I'll leave this one out. This paragraph needs a rewrite to make > it appear like something meaningful. Merely substituting "try and > <verb> -> try to <verb>" won't solve any problems here. Agreed. > > > Index: en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/basics/chapter.sgml > > > =================================================================== > > > RCS file: /home/ncvs/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/basics/chapter.sgml,v > > > retrieving revision 1.59 > > > diff -u -r1.59 chapter.sgml > > > --- en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/basics/chapter.sgml 26 Mar 2002 23:37:38 -0000 1.59 > > > +++ en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/basics/chapter.sgml 3 Apr 2002 22:23:39 -0000 > > > @@ -890,7 +890,7 @@ > > > send—some of them have a specific meaning, others are interpreted > > > by the application, and the application's documentation will tell you > > > how that application interprets signals. You can only send a signal to > > > - a process that you own. If you try and send a signal to someone else's > > > + a process that you own. If you send a signal to someone else's > > > process it will be ignored. The exception to this is the > > > > Slightly bigger problem here. > > If you try to send a signal to someone else's process your attempt will fail > > with EPERM, as opposed to being ignored. > > This is the only one that I'd definitely want to see fixed, the others are > > just MHO. > > I was thinking of that too. Referring to errors like EPERM in the > "basics" chapter somehow seems like an overkill though. But I guess > it's ok, since kill(1) or kill(2) will fail with EPERM. So we might > just refer to these two here with something like: > > If you send a signal to someone else's > process with &man.kill.1; or &man.kill.2; it will fail with > EPERM, since you are not permitted to signal processes of other > users. The exception to this is the ... If simpler terms would be better (and I agree that they probably would), it might be preferable to simply say that "permission will be denied" or similar. > Thanks Ceri, > a very useful review. No, thank you for doing the donkey work :) Ceri -- get the cool shoe shine To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020407103710.GA3018>