From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7755 invoked by alias); 20 May 2003 22:08:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7716 invoked from network); 20 May 2003 22:08:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 May 2003 22:08:44 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id 556EFF2DA0; Tue, 20 May 2003 18:08:43 -0400 (EDT) To: aph@redhat.com, fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU Subject: Re: "obvious" requirements Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Message-Id: <20030520220843.556EFF2DA0@nile.gnat.com> Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 22:58:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01911.txt.bz2 > Regardless of the academic history of this particular usage of the term, > it nevertheless has a strongly vulgar connotation, and IMHO should be > avoided in the GCC manual. There are many people who would look for > any excuse to write GCC off as not a serious contender (maintained by > a bunch of part-time amateurs who can't even write a proper manual, > they would like to think) so it is important that the official GCC > documentation be written in a serious tone. I strongly agree this this statement.