Skip to content

Possible English typos #87

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
changkun opened this issue Dec 1, 2019 · 0 comments
Closed

Possible English typos #87

changkun opened this issue Dec 1, 2019 · 0 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@changkun
Copy link
Owner

changkun commented Dec 1, 2019

   p8  amzed -> amazed?

  p10 Deprecation is not completely unusable, it is only intended to imply that programmers
      will disappear from future standards and should be avoided.
 -> I am not a native English speaker, but I think "programmers" above should be
         "features" or something like this.

  p10 cpp char *str = "hello world!"; // A deprecation warning will appear
      -> Isn't "cpp" unnecessary (and wrong)?

  p12 (CXX)(SOURCE_CXX) (OBJECT SC )(LDFLAGS_COMMON) -o (TARGET)clean : rm − rf ∗ .o(
      TARGET) -> I think "clean" make target should be on a separate line. Plus, $ should
      prefix the parentheses, like $(CXX).


 p16 so even if this behavior is in most compilers Both support, but
     -> so even if this behavior is supported by most compilers, but

 p16 This keyword explicitly tells the compiler that it should verify that len_foo should be
     a compile time. Constant expression. -> a compile time constant expression.

 p17 which causes us to rename the other when we need to traverse the entire std::vectors
     again. A variable. -> I guess "A variable" should be deleted or appended earlier "rename the other
     variable when".

 p18 which is The initialization of class -> which is the initialization of class
     (Note that this kind of abrupt capitalisations are fairly common.)

 p32 Line 15 // inhereit constructor => inheritance constructor

 p36 but you don’t want to use a function to name a function -> I guess the following is
     better/more correct: "but you don’t want to use name to call a function"

 p36 for the things in [catch list] -> for the things in [capture list]

 p39 Although this part of the standard library is part of the standard library =>
     I guess the following is better/more correct:
     Although the features are part of the standard library and not found in runtime,

 p41 that is, A value => that is, a value

 p42 Line 24: // string,string,string, => string,string,string,string

 p45 reference contraction rule => I guess "reference collapsing rule" is a better name.

 p53 except for std::pair There seems to be => there (Not capital T).

 p55 , eliminating the display call delete, => , eliminating to call delete,

 p57 Line 35: "p2 was destroied" => "p2 was destroyed"

 p57 Line 40: destroied => destroyed

 p58 Line 11: destroied => destroyed

 p58 Line 18: destroied => destroyed

 p58 no The way => no way

 p59 Figure 2: Untranslated word, Chinese?

 p66 std::lock_gurad => std::lock_guard

 p66 RAII guarantees the exceptional security of the code while losing the simplicity of the code.
     => I guess here you are promoting RAII and the following is better:
     RAII guarantees the exceptional security of the code while keeping the simplicity of the code.

 p69 notd_one() of std ::condition_variable is used to wake up a thread =>
     notify_one() of std ::condition_variable is used to wake up a thread

 p71 Intuitively, a = 5;int2seems => Intuitively, a = 5; seems

Many thanks to Oguz Kupusoglu.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant