* [wwwdocs] Patch for RE: Coding conventions -- command line option vs command-line option
[not found] ` <46EE7009.9020500@codesourcery.com>
@ 2007-09-20 0:52 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2007-09-20 18:57 ` Dave Korn
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2007-09-20 0:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Korn, Joseph S. Myers, Sandra Loosemore; +Cc: gcc, gcc-patches
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Dave Korn wrote:
> Hyphenated. It's not a line option of a command, it's an option of a
> command-line.
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> As an adjective I think it should be "command-line"; I'm sure Sandra will
> correct me if I'm wrong here.
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> As an adjective immediately preceding the noun it modifies, yes, it should be
> hyphenated: "command-line option". But if you use "command line" as a noun,
> use the unhyphenated form; e.g., "use the -foo option on the command line".
Thanks to the three of you for your guidance on this, Dave, Joseph, and
Sandra!
I am committing the patch below to our coding conventions and will fix
up the existing web pages accordingly.
Gerald
Index: codingconventions.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/codingconventions.html,v
retrieving revision 1.52
diff -u -3 -p -r1.52 codingconventions.html
--- codingconventions.html 10 Sep 2007 18:45:48 -0000 1.52
+++ codingconventions.html 19 Sep 2007 22:29:05 -0000
@@ -270,6 +270,11 @@ and code. The following table lists som
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
+ <td>"command-line option"</td>
+ <td>"command line option"</td>
+ <td></td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
<td>"dependent" (adjective), "dependence", "dependency"</td>
<td>"dependant", "dependance", "dependancy"</td>
<td></td>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread