From: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
To: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] slirp: Fix spelling in comment (enought -> enough, insure -> ensure)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:13:10 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5064A546.9080302@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1348772258-31168-1-git-send-email-sw@weilnetz.de>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1198 bytes --]
On 09/27/2012 12:57 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
> ---
>
> As a non native speaker, I feel that 'ensure' is better here than 'insure'.
> Could a native speaker please confirm that?
As a US speaker, I've seen both words used interchangeably. I also
checked dictionary.com, where both words imply a guarantee, but 'insure'
has a connotation of a guarantee against loss (think insurance policy)
while 'ensure' tends to be used in most other situations. That is, I am
in favor of this spelling change for connotation reasons. But as Peter
pointed out, the sentence has more problems than just a spelling choice.
> - * For the error advice packets must first insure that the
> - * packet is large enought to contain the returned ip header.
> + * For the error advice packets must first ensure that the
> + * packet is large enough to contain the returned ip header.
> * Only then can we do the check to see if 64 bits of packet
> * data have been returned, since we need to check the returned
> * ip header length.
>
--
Eric Blake eblake@redhat.com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 617 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
To: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] slirp: Fix spelling in comment (enought -> enough, insure -> ensure)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:13:10 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5064A546.9080302@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1348772258-31168-1-git-send-email-sw@weilnetz.de>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1198 bytes --]
On 09/27/2012 12:57 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>
> ---
>
> As a non native speaker, I feel that 'ensure' is better here than 'insure'.
> Could a native speaker please confirm that?
As a US speaker, I've seen both words used interchangeably. I also
checked dictionary.com, where both words imply a guarantee, but 'insure'
has a connotation of a guarantee against loss (think insurance policy)
while 'ensure' tends to be used in most other situations. That is, I am
in favor of this spelling change for connotation reasons. But as Peter
pointed out, the sentence has more problems than just a spelling choice.
> - * For the error advice packets must first insure that the
> - * packet is large enought to contain the returned ip header.
> + * For the error advice packets must first ensure that the
> + * packet is large enough to contain the returned ip header.
> * Only then can we do the check to see if 64 bits of packet
> * data have been returned, since we need to check the returned
> * ip header length.
>
--
Eric Blake eblake@redhat.com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 617 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-27 19:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-27 18:57 [Qemu-trivial] [PATCH] slirp: Fix spelling in comment (enought -> enough, insure -> ensure) Stefan Weil
2012-09-27 18:57 ` [Qemu-devel] " Stefan Weil
2012-09-27 19:07 ` [Qemu-trivial] " Peter Maydell
2012-09-27 19:07 ` Peter Maydell
2012-09-27 19:13 ` Eric Blake [this message]
2012-09-27 19:13 ` Eric Blake
2012-09-27 20:49 ` [Qemu-trivial] " Stefan Weil
2012-09-27 20:49 ` Stefan Weil
2012-10-05 12:25 ` [Qemu-trivial] " Stefan Hajnoczi
2012-10-05 12:25 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5064A546.9080302@redhat.com \
--to=eblake@redhat.com \
--cc=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-trivial@nongnu.org \
--cc=sw@weilnetz.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.