Re: [using gcc book] ch1 rewrite

[Chris Devers <cdevers at pobox dot com>]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Zack Weinberg wrote:

> Chris Devers <cdevers@pobox.com> writes:
>
> > The abbreviation @dfn{GCC} has multiple meanings in common use.
> > Historically, the abbreviation stood for ``GNU C Compiler''; this
> > sense of the name is still common when the emphasis is on compiling C
> > programs. However, the name is now defined generically for the
> > compiler collection as a whole, referring to all languages supported
> > by the suite.
>
> The second sentence here reads awkwardly.  I would suggest instead
>
> | The current official meaning is ``GNU Compiler Collection'', which
> | refers generically to the complete suite of supported languages.

Hmm.

This does seem like an improvement, but it makes sense to me to still
mention the historical sense of the term. Personally, before getting
involved with this book, I also thought that GCC stood for "GNU C
Compiler", and wasn't aware of the newer meaning.

I suspect that if there's no mention of the older expansion of the
acronym, some users will have a distasteful sense of revisionism.

With that in mind, how about this suggestion for those sentences:

  The abbreviation @dfn{GCC} has multiple meanings in common use.
  The current official meaning is ``GNU Compiler Collection'', which
  refers generically to the complete suite of tools.  The name once
  stood for ``GNU C Compiler'', and this usage is still common when
  the emphasis is on compiling C programs. However, the name is now
  defined generically for the compiler collection as a whole,
  referring to all languages supported by the suite.  Finally,
  the name is also used when speaking of the @dfn{language-independent}
  component of GCC: code shared among the compilers for all supported
  languages.

Any better? I'm not sure...

Note also that the "GNU Compiler Collection" expansion is used in the
first sentence of the first paragraph, so repeating it here is arguably
redundant.


I'd agree that that second sentence could read more smoothly, but the more
I think about it the less sure I am how to fix it. In context of the rest
of the chapter's text, I'm not sure that more need be said at that point.

Thoughts?



-- 
Chris Devers      cdevers@pobox.com
http://devers.homeip.net:8080/blog/

accountant, n.
One engaged in the regular verification of "assets = liabilities +
(assets - liabilities)" and similar identities.

    -- from _The Computer Contradictionary_, Stan Kelly-Bootle, 1995