Re: Doc: CG Clarifying about Examples with overrides (issue 7013043)

[James]

hello,

On 26 December 2012 11:00,  <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> https://codereview.appspot.com/7013043/diff/1/Documentation/contributor/doc-work.itexi
> File Documentation/contributor/doc-work.itexi (right):
>
> https://codereview.appspot.com/7013043/diff/1/Documentation/contributor/doc-work.itexi#newcode155
> Documentation/contributor/doc-work.itexi:155: The correct way to add
> [changes like this] to the documentation is to
> On 2012/12/26 07:32:01, J_lowe wrote:
>>
>> On 2012/12/25 09:10:01, bealingsplayfordnews wrote:
>> > Why the [] ?
>
>
>> This is a standard way to to clarify the antecedent. Also you will see
>
> it used
>>
>> to denote missing text [ ... ] or more commonly to denote a mistake or
>> inaccuracy in a quote without it being attributed to the author of the
>
> text it
>>
>> is being quoted in (i.e '[sic]').
>
>
>> Anyway, enough of that, I have rewritten the sentence.
>
>
> Actually, the _only_ usage of [...] I know in text passages is an
> editorial addition, signifying material added by someone different from
> the original author.  In particular, "[sic]" means "as the editor, I am
> perfectly aware that this is wrong, thank you very much.  But since this
> is a literal quotation, I am not at liberty correcting it."
>
> Another frequent use is to make explicit what object a pronoun in a
> quoted section is referring to if the scope of the quotation does not
> allow deducing it.

That's the 'antecedent' thingy I referred to.

> Also, when only sentence parts are quoted and the
> result would be ungrammatical, editorial insertions used for creating a
> grammatical sentence again will be marked with [...].

I thought I might get responses like this, which is why I rewrote the
sentence. Life is too short.

Merry Christmas

;)

James