grammar section 7.4
allard at quicknet.nl
Sun Apr 17 06:15:24 PDT 2005
On Saturday 16 April 2005 17:37, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Allard Welter wrote:
> > Section 7.4.1, second paragraph (tense):
> > Last two sentences should be past tense again (from: The devfs file
> > system also suffers from race ...) unless of course these problems
> > are still manifest in the present implementation in which case it
> > reads a little odd.
> As mentioned, those race conditions are a product of devfs' design,
> hence will be present as long as devfs is. Could you explain your
> POV that "it reads a little odd"? To me, the whole of 7.4.1 is in
> the past tense (and rightly so, given its title of "History").
> Thinking about it some more, I'm not sure we need all of that
> historical stuff in there anyway, simply explain how we handle
> devices and modules in LFS and leave it at that.
The paragraph seems to go back and forth. I agree though the whole
history section is probably unecessary. Why describe something not
being used and more than likely to be shelved indefinately?
> > All of a sudden section 7.4 goes to third
> > person (and second). Not that I have anything against the more
> > personal approach, just pointing out an inconsistency.
> I can't think of how this could be reworded, though I agree that
> consistency is important. Care to prepare a patch?
I went and reread some random sections and I was wrong. The use of "we"
is throughout the book. I don't know why I got the impression it
wasn't. Perhaps some scientific stuff I've read recently ... things
like "therefore it is trivial" and "it is easy to show that" to
disguise many pages of mindbending algebra causing my brain to make
incorrect associations. Sorry for the fuss,
More information about the lfs-dev