Re: [using gcc book] ch10.11 Certain Changes We Don't Want to Make

[Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>]

> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> 
> > Well, the paragraph does need to justify the policy decision not to
> > include this feature, so:
> >
> >    * Warning when a non-void function value is ignored.
> >
> >      We feel that there are legitimate reasons to ignore function
> >      return values, and that writing @code{(void)} before every
> >      function call whose result is intentionally ignored makes the
> >      program harder to read for little benefit.
> 
> Clear & to the point. Very good.
> 
> My only quibble is the first person plural -- would it be fair to say "The
> GCC development group" instead of "we"?  The GNU style guidelines I've
> been asked to go by discourage any use of the first person, so a big part
> of what I've been working on has been rephrasing sentences this way.
> 

Well, the whole chapter is entitled "Changes *WE* don't want to make" (my 
emphasis).  I think in this case there is some latitude for expressing the 
collective opinion of the developers.  Maybe we should just start the 
chapter with a statement to that effect and then continue to use "we" as 
appropriate.

R.