cvs commit: src/sys/ufs/ufs ufs_vnops.c
Greg 'groggy' Lehey
grog at FreeBSD.org
Thu Jun 1 17:25:02 PDT 2006
On Friday, 2 June 2006 at 2:50:47 +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, John Baldwin wrote:
>> On Thursday 01 June 2006 06:01, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 10:49:50AM +0100, Ceri Davies wrote:
>>>> @@ -69,6 +69,10 @@
>>>> the file must be open for writing.
>>>> .Sh RETURN VALUES
>>>> .Rv -std
>>>> +If the file to be modified is not a directory or
>>>> +a regular file, the
>>>> +.Fn truncate
>>>> +call will return the value 0.
>>> Doesn't "value of 0" sound better?
>> Not to me, though I can't explain why. I think the phrase "X will return
>> value Y" is common in man pages though.
> "will return" sounds strange to be.
Yes, it will be better if you avoid the future tense.
> Normal is "Upon successful completion, the value 0 is returned...".
The passive is also to be avoided.
How about "upon successful completion,\n.Nm\nreturns the value 0."?
> This is part of what ".Rv -std" expands to.
> POSIX says "Upon successful completion, ftruncate( ) shall return 0...".
Yes, but this is prescriptive. The man page should be descriptive.
> The POSIX wording is better. "the value 0" says nothing more than
It makes it clear that it's not a NULL pointer.
> and "returns" is clearer than "is returned".
> Saying "the value 0" is apparently a hack to give the clause a
> subject (or is it an object? -- I think the value is the object
> convoluted to a subject or vice versa).
I don't think it makes any difference there. 0 is also a
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/attachments/20060602/b7ccd2cf/attachment.pgp
More information about the cvs-src