From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A1BC3858D28 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 17:09:35 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 9A1BC3858D28 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gnu.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gnu.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pKjHA-00026N-4O; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 12:09:32 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=ddydVeuqtaVWIkwZ4/LDwW+igUviaDM0YiMsaPDh4Ts=; b=W5tukkVU+6wq pd+rF1ytydCGssd5h+Aw6yLgIUt62hkQIpH/MwBKcoBOH+9ERER5Cu3QjfrFk1TUcdp95OVnM8OOF LAaPFtUg4BPTl4fMYbqrYDCLHKEj8mEfTUCUrlFN9pHRvrMjOcCwe9EHHvDJf5USqbMeKZl5HGmkX d/3Q26nTPl/+qQfFJ8osmdYYvMSb0/CDeqlmKqQoBt1DaDz8I7G+lvSK/FE+6nmLcvmQGX3P8jRWz blecPg7H0ulf3a0nLbbn4n38mE9Z1idgUtojVrYsOz2LmsDX+z8qqCu11lYQxfbZFqrgx8ubHQPwd 0piOTVtRqFygfm5j8jqK4A==; Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pKjH9-0005yN-Jb; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 12:09:31 -0500 Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 19:09:45 +0200 Message-Id: <83k01afsme.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Andrew Burgess Cc: tankut.baris.aktemur@intel.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <87zga6v9tk.fsf@redhat.com> (message from Andrew Burgess on Wed, 25 Jan 2023 16:49:11 +0000) Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 03/13] gdb: include breakpoint number in testing condition error message References: <478a1e660361f1290c2dd8e9ad999d59d0ad3dcb.1674058359.git.aburgess@redhat.com> <838rhypxlg.fsf@gnu.org> <87zga6v9tk.fsf@redhat.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: > From: Andrew Burgess > Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 16:49:11 +0000 > > "Aktemur, Tankut Baris" writes: > > >> No, capitalized "Breakpoint" would read wrong English-wise in that > >> case. > > > > For me to better understand the rule, wouldn't it be the same as > > "see in figure 5" vs. "see in Figure 5", or "given in section 2.1" > > vs. "given in Section 2.1"? > > Given the number of corrections I get for my doc edits, this should be > taken with a pinch of salt, but ... > > ... in the examples you give "Figure 5" and "Section 2.1" would be the > actual name of a thing, e.g. there will be a figure somewhere with the > title "Figure 5" and a section somewhere titled "Section 2.1", thus the > capitalisation is correct because you're referencing a named thing. > > In the breakpoint case, what we're referencing isn't _named_ Breakpoint > 5, it just is the 5th breakpoint. Yes, that's correct. "Breakpoint" is not a proper name here, it's just a word.