Fix grammar in 1.81.0 release #1400
Conversation
|
I’ve just been informed that the sentence might’ve been intended to read as "allows explicitly noting, and allows explicitly warning". I feel that way of phrasing it is still worse than this one. |
|
An alternate, more explicit, less ambiguous and weird way to phrase this would be
|
| @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ requirements documented in [PartialOrd] and [Ord]. | |||
| ### `#[expect(lint)]` | |||
|
|
|||
| 1.81 stabilizes a new lint level, `expect`, which allows explicitly noting that | |||
| a particular lint *should* occur, and warning if it doesn't. The intended use | |||
| a particular lint *should* occur, and warn if it doesn't. The intended use | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we're going to not use the gerund here then it needs to agree with the singular "lint level".
| a particular lint *should* occur, and warn if it doesn't. The intended use | |
| a particular lint *should* occur, and warns if it doesn't. The intended use |
i.e. "lint level, expect, which [...] warns if it doesn't"
Though I don't agree that this needs changing at all. Or at least this should be split into two separate sentences if it's ambiguous.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The "warn" is not marked because there's an auxiliary, "should".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO this way of phrasing it is weird, we’re saying this “allows explicitly noting that a particular lint […] warns if it [doesn’t occur]”
|
@compiler-errors Do you have any comment on what I wrote in response to your comment? |
This sentence is on the whole a bit weird as it’s not clear what the subject of "warn if it doesn't" is, but I think this conjugation makes more sense overall