From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: knut.omang@oracle.com (Knut Omang)
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 17:26:16 +0100
Subject: [Cocci] [PATCH v2 2/5] Documentation: Add doc for runchecks
In-Reply-To: <4be59ef0-50a9-83f5-2cf1-f5a34e5810a7@users.sourceforge.net>
References: <7bd67f980fdf33031c54955f7e04b435c267886e.1513430008.git-series.knut.omang@oracle.com>
 <4be59ef0-50a9-83f5-2cf1-f5a34e5810a7@users.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <1513441576.31439.33.camel@oracle.com>
To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
List-Id: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr

On Sat, 2017-12-16 at 17:17 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> Dear Knut,
> 
> Does this document need any more syntax checking and further review besides
> the places which were indicated by Julia Lawall?
> 
> 
> > +Two classes of configuration is available.
> 
> +Two classes ? are available. ?
> 
> 
> > +checker is does not provide any suppression. Check type namespaces are
> 
> +checker does not ?
> 
> 
> > +The checker implementations of the ``typedef`` command also allows
> 
> +The checker implementations ? allow
> 
> 
> > +allow builds with ``C=2`` to pass even for subsystems that has not yet done
> 
> ? subsystems that have not ?
> 
> Regards,
> Markus

I hope not,..
Believe it or not, I do know the grammar rules although it might not 
look that way here :) Always good to get a native english 
speaker to review though.

I'll take these in for v3 as well and carefully review myself 
for any further errors of the same sorts..

Thanks,
Knut