Re: [bug-grep] doc bug in grep; PATTERN implies a regexp used in --include or --exclude

[Tony Abou-Assaleh]

While we are on the language train, the use of 'only' is wrong in many
places. We often see 'only search files' and 'only print something'. I
think these occurrences should be changed to 'search only file' and 'print
only something'.

For those who are interested, "The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language" states:

"When used as an adverb, only should be placed with care to avoid
ambiguity. Generally this means having only adjoin the word or words that
it limits. Variation in the placement of only can change the meaning of
the sentence, as the following examples show: Dictators respect only
force; they are not moved by words. Dictators only respect force; they do
not worship it. She picked up the receiver only when he entered, not
before. She only picked up the receiver when he entered; she didn't dial
the number. Though strict grammarians insist that the rule for placement
of only should always be followed, there are occasions when placement of
only earlier in the sentence seems much more natural, and if the context
is sufficiently clear, there is no chance of being misunderstood. In the
following example only is placed according to the rule: The committee can
make its decision by Friday of next week only if it receives a copy of the
latest report. Placement of only earlier in the sentence, immediately
after can, would warn the reader that a condition on the statement
follows."

From: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=only

Cheers,

TAA

--------------------------------------------------
Tony Abou-Assaleh
Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Computer Science
Chair of the Dalhousie Student Chapter of the ACM
Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada, B3H 1W5
Fax:   902-492-1517
Email: address@hidden
WWW:   http://www.cs.dal.ca/~taa/
---------------------[THE END]--------------------


On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Stepan Kasal wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 01:04:25PM +0100, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> > --include and --exclude by themselves do not mean 'recurse', so the
> > "Recurse in directories" is incorrect.  Both options also work when
> > not recursing, so the info file should not mention "When processing
> > directories recursively".
>
> Right, I have accepted this.
>
> > And --exclude does not skip directories
> > that match the pattern, only files.  Attached is a patch that makes
> > these changes.
>
> But it should.  See the bug #11017 on savannah.
> A longer explanation is in my comment on the rejected patch #3521 there.
>
> > On the exit codes: "0 if any line was selected" is not entirely
> > correct: in the case of -q.
>
> Well, my view is that the line was selected, but not printed.
>
> > "Exit status is 0 upon any match, ..."
>
> I'm not sure about the word "upon" here, a native speaker could judge us.
>
> But I object to the phrase "upon any match", because it is not true if
> `-v' was given.  That's why the phrase ``was selected'' was invented.
>
> (The space change  "s/\. If/\.  If/"  was accepted.)
>
> > And 'may be' is better than 'is' after all, as WHEN is optional, but
> > at least the quote styles should match.
>
> I agree, but I have chosen the other quote style.
>
> Attached please find an updated patch.
>
> Stepan
>