Date: 02 Apr 2002 13:10:48 -0800 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> Cc: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: docs/36448: [PATCH] intro(8) Message-ID: <xhd6xh957r.6xh@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <200204021100.g32B06W53889@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <200204021100.g32B06W53889@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Partially re: ..."such values are not described in the manuals." Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> writes: > You may also want to break the second sentence, 'Its value may be..', > onto a new line :) Also, 'errors codes' might be better as 'error > codes' (singular 'error'), and the final 'manuals' might be replaced > with 'manual pages'. But then, this is just MHO :) I like the first two changes and "manual pages" is surely OK, but "manuals" might better be replaced with the sorter "manual" if the goal is to perpetuate the tradition that there is only one "manual" with many "manual pages". I think we could reduce the tendency to use the silly term "man pages" by promoting the use of the cleaner term "manuals", considering them as elements of a set of manuals, kind of like the old Great Wall of VAX Manuals. I think we should live with both concepts while slowly changing the tradition. But then, this is just MHO :) Tom, I think it should be your choice as a meager "payment" for doing the work. 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?xhd6xh957r.6xh>