From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> writes:
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
"Hendrik Schober" <boost@HSchober.de> writes:
To prepare Unix tools such as GCC, the compiler and linker must be
Rather than "Unix" consider "*nix" to be more inclusive. Those using a *nix OS will understand. Those not using one won't care.
I have no objection. But I do want to know: what *nix OS is not a Unix OS?
Linux is a prime example. "Unix" is a trade name that means something very specific. Not all Unix-like OSes are Unix.
<p> Note: the <b><code>#include</code> root</b> directory mentioned
s/root/<i>root</i>
What is your rationale for suggesting that change?
The only possible reason I can imagine is that you're worried people will think "root" is source code text. But there's already a good hint: the change from code font. I'm pretty sure we don't want to get into using bold-italic text without a very strong motivation.
I'm pretty sure that you used italics to indicate user-specific information elsewhere. (I'd had to go locate the previous message and I don't have time at the moment.) Since the root is based upon where the user unpacks the archive or installs things, it is based upon the user's system needs. Note that I was looking at the HTML source only, so your original may have been fine anyway.
The default build and install attempts to build all available libraries and install to default locations the libraries and Boost header files.
Now you're sounding a bit like Yoda.
Yeah, I had a hard time with that one.
How about this:
The default build and install attempts to build all available ^--- "process" Yes.
libraries and install the libraries and header files to default locations.
I don't like the replication of "default," but I'm not sure how to improve it at this point.
Change the second one to "standard?"
Footnotes: [1] Depending on your installation, a Unix compiler such as GCC may have additional requirements. Check with your system administrator if you're unsure about your installation.
While correct, "you're unsure" is a bit awkward. I suggest expanding the contraction or replacing "unsure" with "not sure."
Doesn't seem awkward to me. When do you feel "unsure" is unawkward?
It's not "unsure" alone that's the problem. It's the juxtaposition of "you're" and "unsure" that I was talking about. Note that one of the suggestions was to expand the contraction. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;