[m-rev.] for review: doc/*.texi: typographical changes for printed output

[Peter Moulder]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 11:19:18AM +1000, David Overton wrote:

> That looks fine, although I wonder whether it is acceptable, when
> the list of years gets this long, to just condense it to `1995--2002'.
> Does anyone have an opinion on that?  Does it make any difference
> legally?

IANAL, but I would be uncomfortable for such a practice to become
common, as it weakens the force of using `1995--1999' as a synonym for
`1995,1996,1997,1998,1999'.

(Incidentally, one source I've read recommends avoiding dashes in copyright
year lists.  No reason was given; maybe it's because some people do
collapse the years as you've suggested.)

> BTW, when you are posting a second review of a change it is usually best
> to provide a diff that is "relative" to your previous diff.  You can
> prepare such a diff using the program `interdiff' (which is in the
> `patchutils' Debian package).

OK, will do in future.  Verbally: the only changes from the original
diff were in the commit message, the copyright years, and the addition
of the `@};' hunk.

I'll commit this after lunch.

pjm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-reviews mailing list
post:  mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
administrative address: owner-mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
unsubscribe: Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: unsubscribe
subscribe:   Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: subscribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------