bug-bison
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton


From: Hans Åberg
Subject: Re: (non)Use of C++ 11 constructs in skeleton
Date: Sun, 19 May 2019 14:34:28 +0200

> On 19 May 2019, at 13:38, Akim Demaille <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> Le 19 mai 2019 à 12:58, Frank Heckenbach <address@hidden> a écrit :
>> 
>> Akim Demaille wrote:
>> 
>>>> Le 19 mai 2019 à 11:02, Hans Åberg <address@hidden> 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





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]