hello,
Am 03.04.2018 um 17:45 schrieb Paul Eggert: > Thanks for mentioning the problem. so you see a problem there too? However, I found the proposed rewrite > to be more confusing than the original. It may me that my way of building sentences is quite amendable. I'm not a native english writer. But what do you think of my teaching concept, to try to explain why a `7' in `755' means =4+2+1=111=rwx="rwx for owner", which is assumed as self-evident or intuitive in both the original text and your patch? I think part of the problem is > that this is not really the place to explain octal notation; maybe. But where would be a place, to formulate the problem `7=4+2+1' more generally? and then to just refer to it? any reader > who doesn't know octal before reading the manual is not likely to > understand it even with the proposed rewrite. Because of what, do you think? I think we should just > give up and assume that the reader knows octal (if they don't they > should be using symbolic modes) if they don't miss any important features.. but why already giving up? does it seem so impossible to find a more newbie-friendly solution? . That being said, we could briefly give > an example of how the individual bits are combined into an octal digit, > and rearrange the description to make it more intuitive. I installed the > attached patch to try to improve things. Why didn't you take over my correction from "are sometimes special" to "have a special meaning for directories" ? > > I also merged Bug#31043 with Bug#29069 since they're the same topic. The problem was, that when writing "Bug#29069" in the subject, nobody responded to my patch proposal, which at the end was nearly to frustrating. greetings, kalle