[PATCH 1/1] Fix typos in Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt

[PATCH 1/1] Fix typos in Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt

[Dmitri Vorobiev]

A couple of typos crept into the newly added document
about the seq_file interface. This patch corrects those
typos and simultaneously deletes a few superfluous blanks.

Signed-off-by: Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt |   18 +++++++++---------
 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt b/Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt
index cc6cdb9..2b6aba6 100644
--- a/Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ The seq_file interface
 
 
 There are numerous ways for a device driver (or other kernel component) to
-provide information to the user or system administrator.  One useful
+provide information to the user or system administrator. One useful
 technique is the creation of virtual files, in debugfs, /proc or elsewhere.
 Virtual files can provide human-readable output that is easy to get at
 without any special utility programs; they can also make life easier for
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ grown over the years.
 Creating those files correctly has always been a bit of a challenge,
 however. It is not that hard to make a virtual file which returns a
 string. But life gets trickier if the output is long - anything greater
-than an application is likely to read in a single operation.  Handling
+than an application is likely to read in a single operation. Handling
 multiple reads (and seeks) requires careful attention to the reader's
 position within the virtual file - that position is, likely as not, in the
 middle of a line of output. The kernel has traditionally had a number of
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ following:
 
 Then concatenate the output files out1 and out2 and get the right
 result. Yes, it is a thoroughly useless module, but the point is to show
-how the mechanism works without getting lost in other details.  (Those
+how the mechanism works without getting lost in other details. (Those
 wanting to see the full source for this module can find it at
 http://lwn.net/Articles/22359/).
 
@@ -92,14 +92,14 @@ implementations; in most cases the start() function should check for a
 "past end of file" condition and return NULL if need be.
 
 For more complicated applications, the private field of the seq_file
-structure can be used. There is also a special value whch can be returned
+structure can be used. There is also a special value which can be returned
 by the start() function called SEQ_START_TOKEN; it can be used if you wish
 to instruct your show() function (described below) to print a header at the
 top of the output. SEQ_START_TOKEN should only be used if the offset is
 zero, however.
 
 The next function to implement is called, amazingly, next(); its job is to
-move the iterator forward to the next position in the sequence.  The
+move the iterator forward to the next position in the sequence. The
 example module can simply increment the position by one; more useful
 modules will do what is needed to step through some data structure. The
 next() function returns a new iterator, or NULL if the sequence is
@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ the four functions we have just defined:
 This structure will be needed to tie our iterator to the /proc file in
 a little bit.
 
-It's worth noting that the interator value returned by start() and
+It's worth noting that the iterator value returned by start() and
 manipulated by the other functions is considered to be completely opaque by
 the seq_file code. It can thus be anything that is useful in stepping
 through the data to be output. Counters can be useful, but it could also be
@@ -261,13 +261,13 @@ routines useful:
 					loff_t *ppos);
 
 These helpers will interpret pos as a position within the list and iterate
-accordingly.  Your start() and next() functions need only invoke the
-seq_list_* helpers with a pointer to the appropriate list_head structure.  
+accordingly. Your start() and next() functions need only invoke the
+seq_list_* helpers with a pointer to the appropriate list_head structure.
 
 
 The extra-simple version
 
-For extremely simple virtual files, there is an even easier interface.  A
+For extremely simple virtual files, there is an even easier interface. A
 module can define only the show() function, which should create all the
 output that the virtual file will contain. The file's open() method then
 calls:
-- 
1.5.3

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix typos in Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt

[Randy Dunlap]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:26:41 +0400 Dmitri Vorobiev wrote:

> A couple of typos crept into the newly added document
> about the seq_file interface. This patch corrects those
> typos and simultaneously deletes a few superfluous blanks.

The "2 spaces after a period at the end of a sentence" was done
on purpose, I feel sure.  It's not a mistake.

The other typo corrections & elimination of trailing whitespace
look good.  Thanks.

> Signed-off-by: Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt |   18 +++++++++---------
>  1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

---
~Randy

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix typos in Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt

[Dmitri Vorobiev]

Randy Dunlap пишет:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:26:41 +0400 Dmitri Vorobiev wrote:
> 
>> A couple of typos crept into the newly added document
>> about the seq_file interface. This patch corrects those
>> typos and simultaneously deletes a few superfluous blanks.
> 
> The "2 spaces after a period at the end of a sentence" was done
> on purpose, I feel sure.  It's not a mistake.

OK, I'll redo the changes.

Actually, I was doubting whether the "2 spaces" thing was
intentional or not. The overwhelming majority of the sentences in
this document use only one space after a period, however, and this
made me decide that the "2 spaces" thing had not been deliberate
but just a typo.

Are there any rules about using spaces after a period at the end
of a sentence?

Thanks,
Dmitri

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix typos in Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt

[Al Viro]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 02:25:05AM +0400, Dmitri Vorobiev wrote:

> Actually, I was doubting whether the "2 spaces" thing was
> intentional or not. The overwhelming majority of the sentences in
> this document use only one space after a period, however, and this
> made me decide that the "2 spaces" thing had not been deliberate
> but just a typo.
> 
> Are there any rules about using spaces after a period at the end
> of a sentence?

See Knuth (TeXbook) for the story on that...

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix typos in Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt

[Dmitri Vorobiev]

Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 02:25:05AM +0400, Dmitri Vorobiev wrote:
> 
>> Actually, I was doubting whether the "2 spaces" thing was
>> intentional or not. The overwhelming majority of the sentences in
>> this document use only one space after a period, however, and this
>> made me decide that the "2 spaces" thing had not been deliberate
>> but just a typo.
>>
>> Are there any rules about using spaces after a period at the end
>> of a sentence?
> 
> See Knuth (TeXbook) for the story on that...
> 

Thanks, Al.

Dmitri

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix typos in Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt

[Randy Dunlap]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:45:47 +0100 Al Viro wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 02:25:05AM +0400, Dmitri Vorobiev wrote:
> 
> > Actually, I was doubting whether the "2 spaces" thing was
> > intentional or not. The overwhelming majority of the sentences in
> > this document use only one space after a period, however, and this
> > made me decide that the "2 spaces" thing had not been deliberate
> > but just a typo.
> > 
> > Are there any rules about using spaces after a period at the end
> > of a sentence?
> 
> See Knuth (TeXbook) for the story on that...

I googled that but I don't see the history there.

AFAIK, 2 spaces at the end of sentences is a typewriter-ism, for easier
visual separation of sentences.
Probably (just guessing here) has to do with monospace fonts vs.
(not having) proportional ones there (usually).

---
~Randy
[Yes, I learned to type on a manual typewriter.]

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix typos in Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt

[Dmitri Vorobiev]

Randy Dunlap пишет:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:45:47 +0100 Al Viro wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 02:25:05AM +0400, Dmitri Vorobiev wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I was doubting whether the "2 spaces" thing was
>>> intentional or not. The overwhelming majority of the sentences in
>>> this document use only one space after a period, however, and this
>>> made me decide that the "2 spaces" thing had not been deliberate
>>> but just a typo.
>>>
>>> Are there any rules about using spaces after a period at the end
>>> of a sentence?
>> See Knuth (TeXbook) for the story on that...
> 
> I googled that but I don't see the history there.
> 
> AFAIK, 2 spaces at the end of sentences is a typewriter-ism, for easier
> visual separation of sentences.
> Probably (just guessing here) has to do with monospace fonts vs.
> (not having) proportional ones there (usually).

The following Wikipedia article is the most complete and exhaustive source
I could find while researching the double spacing rules:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_spacing

To put it briefly, there are three main conventions about inter-sentence
spacing:

o English spacing a.k.a. American typewriter spacing: two spaces after full stop;

o French spacing, i.e. one space;

o traditional typography, which uses proportional fonts and is therefore not
very much interesting here.

Offhand, it seems that the double spacing convention is being currently used
in a more or less consistent manner throughout Linux docs. It also seems to
me that this can be made a requirement and documented somewhere.

Thanks,
Dmitri

> 
> ---
> ~Randy
> [Yes, I learned to type on a manual typewriter.]
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix typos in Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt

[Jonathan Corbet]

Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@gmail.com> wrote:

> Offhand, it seems that the double spacing convention is being currently used
> in a more or less consistent manner throughout Linux docs. It also seems to
> me that this can be made a requirement and documented somewhere.

Double spacing is my preference, and I appreciate your sending a new
patch which doesn't take that out.

But *please* let's not try to make "requirements" along those lines.  If
somebody's going to go to the trouble to write some documentation, I
don't think we really want people bouncing it back to them with 100
"single space after period" errors from checkpatch.pl...

Thanks,

jon

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix typos in Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt

[Dmitri Vorobiev]

Jonathan Corbet пишет:
> Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Offhand, it seems that the double spacing convention is being currently used
>> in a more or less consistent manner throughout Linux docs. It also seems to
>> me that this can be made a requirement and documented somewhere.
> 
> Double spacing is my preference, and I appreciate your sending a new
> patch which doesn't take that out.
> 
> But *please* let's not try to make "requirements" along those lines.  If
> somebody's going to go to the trouble to write some documentation, I
> don't think we really want people bouncing it back to them with 100
> "single space after period" errors from checkpatch.pl...
> 

OK, clear enough. Thanks.

Dmitri

> Thanks,
> 
> jon
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix typos in Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt

[Randy Dunlap]

Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Offhand, it seems that the double spacing convention is being currently used
>> in a more or less consistent manner throughout Linux docs. It also seems to
>> me that this can be made a requirement and documented somewhere.
> 
> Double spacing is my preference, and I appreciate your sending a new
> patch which doesn't take that out.
> 
> But *please* let's not try to make "requirements" along those lines.  If
> somebody's going to go to the trouble to write some documentation, I
> don't think we really want people bouncing it back to them with 100
> "single space after period" errors from checkpatch.pl...

Big Ack on that.

-- 
~Randy

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix typos in Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Monday 2008-04-14 04:33, Dmitri Vorobiev wrote:
>
>To put it briefly, there are three main conventions about inter-sentence
>spacing:
>
>o English spacing a.k.a. American typewriter spacing: two spaces after full stop;
>
>o French spacing, i.e. one space;

French spacing has even weirder inter-word/operator spacing,
like « this » and that !

>Offhand, it seems that the double spacing convention is being currently used
>in a more or less consistent manner throughout Linux docs. It also seems to
>me that this can be made a requirement and documented somewhere.

I object. No matter how many (unescaped) spaces you cram in after a sentence
stop, HTML engines will happily squash it when displayed [in text/html
mode of course], like <p>do as much english spacing.       as you want,
it's still correctly fixed by the display :-)</p>.

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix typos in Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt

[Al Viro]

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 07:09:16PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:

> AFAIK, 2 spaces at the end of sentences is a typewriter-ism, for easier
> visual separation of sentences.
> Probably (just guessing here) has to do with monospace fonts vs.
> (not having) proportional ones there (usually).

In a sense...  Basically, the real rules are
	* inter-sentence space is naturally wider than inter-word one
	* if you need to stretch line, inter-sentence spaces get
proportionally more than inter-word ones.
	* if you need to shrink line, they get proportionally less.
	* there are fun extra considerations for quoted sentences and
friends.

For monospace almost nothing of that can be applied, but the first part
(wider inter-sentence spaces) is more painful to ignore.  The ratio for
normally typeset text is going to be less than 2, but it's easier on
eyes to approximate it with 2 than with 1...

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix typos in Documentation/filesystems/seq_file.txt

[Nick Andrew]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 02:25:05AM +0400, Dmitri Vorobiev wrote:
> Actually, I was doubting whether the "2 spaces" thing was
> intentional or not. The overwhelming majority of the sentences in
> this document use only one space after a period, however, and this
> made me decide that the "2 spaces" thing had not been deliberate
> but just a typo.

The 2-spaces ones were probably reformatted using 'fmt'. If fmt joins
a line ending in a period, it will use 2 spaces. It does not change the
spacing in non-joined lines, despite what the manpage says.

Nick.