55122Re: PATCH porting.pod "First Mystery"
- Oct 24, 2003Brian McCauley wrote:
> Stas Bekman <stas@...> writes:All I wanted to say is that my wording reads better if using commas. I didn't
>>> ... I'd keep the "for which"
>>>even if some people consider such strict English grammar to be
>>I guess it reads better if using commas:
>>The easiest and the fastest way to solve the nested subroutines
>>problem is to switch every lexically scoped variable, you get the
>>warning for, to a global package variable.
> OK, I still find the strict English grammar easier to read in this
> instance, but I'll go with your form.
imply that it was better than yours, when using commas. Your wording was just
fine (and certainly better then mine ;)
Agreed with the rest of remaining comments to the ongoing comments ;)
> I think porting.pod is done.Indeed.
> Now I have to attack perl_reference.pod,Yes. Let's commit them together. Unless you think that it'll take a long time
> and I assume from what you said before you don't want to release the
> one without the other.
before you will come up with perl_reference.pod patches, in which I can I
guess we can commit this one right now.
Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@... http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
- << Previous post in topic