Re: Fixing trivial grammaros

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Eric Blake wrote on Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:13:53PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues <at> gmx.de> writes:
> > @@ -12811,7 +12811,7 @@ Initialization Macros
> >  parent script has @code{AS_MESSAGE_FD} redirected somewhere besides
> >  @samp{1}, then the child script already has code that copies stdout to
> >  that descriptor.  Currently, the suggested
> > -idiom for writing a M4sh shell script from within another script is:
> > +idiom for writing an M4sh shell script from within another script is:
> 
> Hmm.  The manual itself says that this is pronounced 'mash', not 'em-four-ess-
> aitch' [1].  In which case, this hunk is a step backwards.

Oh, sorry about that.  I'll revert it.

> > @@ -20053,7 +20053,7 @@ config.status Invocation
> > 
> >  It configures each @var{tag}; if none are specified, all the templates
> >  are instantiated.  A @var{tag} refers to a file or other tag associated
> > -with a configuration action, as specified by a @code{AC_CONFIG_FOOS}
> > +with a configuration action, as specified by an @code{AC_CONFIG_FOOS}
> 
> At least we're consistent in using the term 'AC_CONFIG_FOOS' throughout the 
> manual.  But on rereading this, I think I'd like:
> 
> @address@hidden
> 
> better, since it emphasizes that FOOS is a meta-syntactic placeholder for one 
> of the four config actions.  It won't help info text (since FOOS is already 
> in 
> capitals), but will make html and pdf renderings nicer.

Hmm.  We have more instances of using foo or FOO or FOOS instead of
using metasyntactic variables in the manual, in several markup
circumstances.  I think such a change would deserve a bit more work,
and maybe some renaming, too.

Cheers,
Ralf