Re: [PATCH, doc]: Fix typo.

["Tom Browder" <tom.browder@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Ben Elliston wrote:
>  >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg00102.html
>  > Sorry, Tom, I don't think this qualifies as obvious and I cannot approve
>  > it -- this is not an area I am a maintainer of.
>
>  When it comes to documentation, we're generally not that strict. :-)
>
>  That said: Tom, I believe the patch introduces a number of problems
>  coming from too mechanical an approach.
>
>  Specifically, in
>
>   -continues until a non-array type is found, and the qualification of this
>   -type is examined.)  So, for example, @code{CP_TYPE_CONST_P} will hold of
>   -the type @code{const int ()[7]}, denoting an array of seven @code{int}s.
>   +continues until a non-array type is found and the qualification of its
>   +type is examined.)  So, for example, @code{CP_TYPE_CONST_P} will hold
>   +for the type @code{const int ()[7]}, denoting an array of seven @code{int}s.
>
>  the part that replaces "this type" by "its type" doesn't seem right.
>  And in

OK, I agree.

>
>   Used to mark the beginning (if @code{CTOR_BEGIN_P} holds) or end (if
>   -@code{CTOR_END_P} holds of the main body of a constructor.  See also
>   +@code{CTOR_END_P} holds) for the main body of a constructor.  See also
>   @code{SUBOBJECT} for more information on how to use these nodes.
>
>  adding the closing parenthesis is a valid fix, but replacing "of" by
>  "for" does not seem right.

I agree.  After I closed the parenthetical expression I failed to
reread the sentence.  Now the 'of' makes perfect sense.

>  The patch is fine (approved) if you fix these two aspects.

I'll do that.

Thanks, Gerald.

-Tom