All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

grammar police check List::Util man page

mr_bean on 2007-09-25T23:14:49

--- List/Util.pm 2007-09-26 06:41:03.996285608 +0800 +++ List/Utils.pm 2007-09-26 06:49:42.086523920 +0800 @@ -113,10 +113,11 @@ =head1 DESCRIPTION -C contains a selection of subroutines that people have -expressed would be nice to have in the perl core, but the usage would -not really be high enough to warrant the use of a keyword, and the size -so small such that being individual extensions would be wasteful. +C contains a selection of subroutines that +people wanted to put in the perl core, but which are not +really used enough to warrant them having their own keyword, +and which are so small that making them individual +extensions would be wasteful. By default C does not export any subroutines. The subroutines defined are @@ -241,8 +242,9 @@ =head1 SUGGESTED ADDITIONS -The following are additions that have been requested, but I have been reluctant -to add due to them being very simple to implement in perl +The following are additions that have been requested, but +which I have been reluctant to add because they are very +simple to implement in perl. # One argument is true

There's a place for patches

rafael on 2007-09-26T08:50:23

Or even several:
- the RT queue for List::Util (http://rt.cpan.org/NoAuth/Bugs.html?Dist=Scalar-List-Utils)
- Graham, directly
- perl5-porters, since it's a core module

Horrified

mr_bean on 2007-09-26T09:14:10

I don't think the man page should be changed. I would oppose the real application of this patch. I like it the way it is expressed as it is. I don't even feel the grammatically correct version is more understandable by people whose first language isn't English.

I am an English teacher. I just found myself thinking how to reformulate the thing.

I am beginning to think my joke has backfired.

Ah, wordsmithing

Aristotle on 2007-09-26T14:38:30

  1. “C<List::Util> contains a selection of subroutines that people have wanted in the Perl core, but whose usage and size wouldn’t justify a keyword or an individual extension.”

    This strays quite a bit from the original wording, but conserves all its meaning while being shorter and much simpler.

  2. “The following additions have been requested but are so simple to implement in Perl that I have been reluctant to add them.”

    This the exactly same as the original, except that I switched two clauses and thereby got rid of all the awkward constructions.