On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 12:01:45AM +0000, Sevan Janiyan wrote: > > > On 07/03/2016 19:14, Jason McIntyre wrote: > > all of your changes appear to be for the sake of preference, rather than > > that what's there is incorrect. it would be better then to state why you > > think your change is neccessary. i don;t feel any of these changes are > > improvements. > > > > language is flexible, that's all. i'm not generally in favour of > > changing something just because we can. >
morning. > Sure thing. > 1) An interface is not a type of address, referencing the interface > triggers the system to look up the address associated with the interface. the text does not say that it is a type of address. it means if the contents of the "address" argument is an interface name... it also says "If `*' is given as an address" without implying that. your text makes it less clear, i'd say. > 2) you reference in a particular syntax, not of a particular syntax the text that is there is not incorrect, as i said. nor is it ambiguous, or unclear. > 3) I agree for the changes in the last paragraph doesn't add anything > but changes style. twice is succinct :) > yes, twice is nicer. but what's there is another way of saying twice, and not wrong. why change it? i might, if i were making other changes i guess. i think it's better to submit changes where there is a clear improvement, or where we can definitely say what's there now is incorrect. jmc > > Regards > > > Sevan >
