> On 19 May 2019, at 13:38, Akim Demaille <a...@lrde.epita.fr> wrote: > >> Le 19 mai 2019 à 12:58, Frank Heckenbach <f.heckenb...@fh-soft.de> a écrit : >> >> Akim Demaille wrote: >> >>>> Le 19 mai 2019 à 11:02, Hans Åberg <haber...@telia.com> a écrit : >>>> >>>> Also a spelling error: copiable. >>> >>> I'm installing this. Thanks a lot Hans! >>> >>> fix: use copiable, not copyable >> >> Am I missing something? Seems like "copyable" is a valid alternative >> form: >> >> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/copiable >> >> and commonly used in C++: >> >> https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/is_trivially_copyable > > Bummer. Reading 'copiable' felt so weird…
I felt the opposite. :-) > But the dictionary I checked had it, and not 'copyable’. Probably the same as I did (see my other post). It has varied historically [1]. > I'll revert that for 3.4.1 then… You must choose what you feel is best. Here is a video on the topic of English spelling history. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqLiRu34kWo 1. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=copiable%2Ccopyable&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Ccopiable%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bcopiable%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BCopiable%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Ccopyable%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bcopyable%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BCopyable%3B%2Cc0