This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: contrib.texi
- From: Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot OZ dot AU>
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- Cc: Ben Elliston <bje at wasabisystems dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 15:28:45 +1000
- Subject: Re: PATCH: contrib.texi
- References: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0303291337270.16839@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> <m2llykbade.fsf@sashimi.local.> <Pine.BSF.4.53.0304090703180.62853@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
On 09-Apr-2003, Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Ben Elliston wrote:
> > Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at> writes:
> >> * doc/contrib.texi: Add Eric Botcazou and Roger Sayle.
> >> Uniformly use bugfix instead of bug fix.
> > Is it really "bugfix" over "bug fix"?
>
> There were 16 uses of "bugfix" and 3 uses of "bug fix" in contrib.tex and
> Google votes 390,000 over 307,000 in favor of "bugfix", so I converted the
> latter to the former.
The winning margin seems to be composed of pages written in German!
If you select "search for English results only", then "bug fix" wins
290,000 to 200,000.
As a native English speaker, I find "bug fix" a lot more natural.
--
Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot oz dot au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne | of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.