From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 79053 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2015 20:26:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 79040 invoked by uid 89); 8 Dec 2015 20:26:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: resqmta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net Received: from resqmta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net (HELO resqmta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net) (96.114.154.161) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 20:26:10 +0000 Received: from resomta-po-15v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.239]) by resqmta-po-02v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id r8S91r0035AAYLo018S9WM; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 20:26:09 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:558:6045:a4:40c6:7199:cd03:b02d] ([IPv6:2001:558:6045:a4:40c6:7199:cd03:b02d]) by resomta-po-15v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id r8S61r0032ztT3H018S6uq; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 20:26:07 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix warnings from including fdl.texi into gnat-style.texi From: Mike Stump In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 20:26:00 -0000 Cc: Tom de Vries , Arnaud Charlet , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3F9F0C7C-CB93-491B-8231-9527B1FDCA8F@comcast.net> References: <54E9F4D2.9050504@mentor.com> <20150222173714.GA3798@adacore.com> <550BF22A.4060003@mentor.com> <56669F1E.4010202@mentor.com> To: Gerald Pfeifer X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-12/txt/msg00916.txt.bz2 On Dec 8, 2015, at 10:10 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Tue, 8 Dec 2015, Tom de Vries wrote: >>>> Can you approve the fdl part? >>> Let's assume I can. Okay. >> was the 'Okay' above: >> - a figure of speech (as I read it), or >> - an actual approval (conditional on the adding of the comment) >> ? >=20 > I should have written this as "Let's assume I can: Okay." or > better "Let's assume I can. -> Okay.=94 Ok. Is the canonical spelling. :-) [ ducks ]